Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan

January 2013

Prepared by the National Park Service in collaboration with the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia, the States of Delaware, Maryland, New York, and West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

Cover Photos Top: NPS, NPS, NPS/Starke Jett Bottom: NPS/Starke Jett, Lara Lutz, James River Association

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan

January 2013

National Park Service, Chesapeake Bay Office, Annapolis MD

Acknowledgements

This Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan was prepared in collaboration with a “Public Access Planning Action Team” composed of staff involved in public access planning and implementation at each of the Chesapeake watershed states, the District of Columbia, and the National Park Service. Action Team members involved in developing this plan include:

• John Davy, National Park Service – Chesapeake Bay Office • Andy Fitch, National Park Service – Chesapeake Bay Office • Heather Bennett, National Park Service – Chesapeake Bay Office • Sarah Brzezinski, Chesapeake Research Consortium • Andrea Almond, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation • Tom Ford, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources • Lisa Gutierrez, Maryland Department of Natural Resources • Larry Hart, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries • Mark Hohengasser, New York State Parks • Jackie Kramer, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission • Michael Krumrine, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control • Susan Moerschel, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control • Danette Poole, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation • Bret Preston, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources • Tammy Stidham, National Park Service – National Capital Region • Emily Wilson, Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Hundreds of citizens contributed directly to this plan as well, through public workshops and use of an online tool for suggesting public access sites. In fact, the majority of potential public access sites identified in this plan come directly from suggestions made by citizens.

For more information on this plan, please contact: Superintendent, National Park Service, Chesa- peake Bay Office, 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 314, Annapolis MD 21403, (410) 260-2470.

Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... i I. Introduction ...... 1 II. The Demand for Public Access Executive Order and America’s Great Outdoors Report ...... 3 Demand and Need at the State and Local Levels ...... 4 Economic Benefit ...... 5 Connecting Families with Nature ...... 7 III. Planning Process and Parameters Geographic Area ...... 9 Definition of Public Access and Types of Access Development ...... 11 Definition of New Public Access ...... 11 Establishing the Baseline of Existing Access Sites ...... 12 Public Involvement in Identifying Access Sites ...... 12 IV. Current Status of Public Access in the Chesapeake Watershed ...... 15 V. Potential Public Access Sites in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Grouping Potential Sites by Readiness ...... 22 Analysis of Potential New Access Sites ...... 23 Geographic Areas with a High Interest in Public Access ...... 27 Potential Sites in Relation to Existing Water Trails ...... 30 Camping and Related Water-to-Land Access ...... 32 VI. Planning and Policy Considerations Providing Public Access in Urban Areas ...... 33 Waters Trails as Motivators for Site Development ...... 35 Use Conflicts ...... 36 Railroads ...... 37 Access at Public Lands ...... 37 Permitting Requirements ...... 38 Universal Accessibility ...... 38 Hydropower Licensing ...... 38 State and Local Planning Documents ...... 39 Working Waterfronts ...... 39 Transportation Improvements and Public Access ...... 40 Funding Sources, Issues, and Strategies ...... 41 VII. Summary and Next Steps Findings ...... 43 Moving Forward ...... 45 Conclusion ...... 47 Endnotes ...... 49 Appendix A: Public Access Milestones, Baseline, and Tracking ...... 51 Appendix B: Potential Access Sites ...... 55 Appendix C: Potential Funding Sources ...... 99

List of Maps

Note: The maps included in this document necessarily compress the 64,000 square- mile Chesapeake Bay watershed to a letter-size page. Clearly, this is not the optimal way for viewing some of the information presented in this plan. Accordingly, each of the maps is also available through an online viewer, which allows the user to look at the information in different scales. Links for online maps are provided in the text of this document and also in the list below.

Tidal Shorelines and Streams of Fifth-Order or Higher ...... 10 http://www.baygateways.net/ViewPA/index.html?config=streams.xml

Existing Public Access Sites ...... 17 http://www.baygateways.net/ViewPA/index.html?config=existing.xml

Average Length of Shoreline or Riverbank between Existing Sites ...... 18 http://www.baygateways.net/ViewPA/index.html?config=distance.xml

Potential Public Access Sites ...... 24 http://www.baygateways.net/ViewPA/index.html?config=potential.xml

Density of Potential Public Access Sites ...... 29

Trails and Potential Public Access Sites ...... 31 http://www.baygateways.net/ViewPA/index.html?config=trails.xml

Providing adequate public access to the Bay and its tributaries is important for quality of life, the economy, and for long‐ term conservation of the region’s treasured natural and cultural resources.

NPS

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan January 2013 | National Park Service | Chesapeake Bay Office

Executive Summary

The Chesapeake Bay region is rapidly urbanizing. More than eleven million people live in metropolitan areas close to the Bay, including significant diverse communities and new immigrants. Fewer people interact daily with the waters, forests, and open lands of the region. Despite this trend—or perhaps because of it—regional residents increasingly seek opportunities to reconnect with the outdoors.

State, federal, and local governments are guardians of these opportunities, providing public sites where everyone can enjoy the natural and cultural bounty of the Chesapeake Bay watershed—relaxing, learning, and reflecting in direct interaction with the region’s treasured outdoors. Some sites provide direct access to the Bay and its rivers for boating and swimming. Others provide spots where visitors without watercraft can fish, observe wildlife, walk trails, and camp along the water’s edge.

Open, green spaces and waterways with ample public access bolster public health and quality of life. People rely on these special places to exercise, relax, and recharge their spirits. Outdoor time strengthens family bonds and nurtures fit, creative children. At the same time, it builds personal connections with the very places that have shaped life in the region for centuries—especially its streams, rivers, and bays. This has a distinct economic value, too, as tourism, much of it associated with the area’s waters, is a potent force in the region.

The sense of place that evolves from outdoor experiences along Chesa- peake waters often leads to a feeling of shared responsibility for the resources. People who enjoy the outdoors are more likely to become active

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Executive Summary i

citizen stewards, engaged in the many conservation and stewardship efforts taking place throughout the region.

Despite this, physical access to the Bay and its tributaries—the very resources that form the basis for the Chesapeake’s unique identity—is limited. This has real consequences for quality of life, for the economy, and for long-term conservation.

The Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed was re- leased in May 2010, in response to Executive Order 13508 (Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration) issued by President Obama. It includes a key goal to increase public access to the Bay and its tributaries by adding 300 new public access sites by 2025. The basis for this goal lies in the NPS/Jett long-standing public demand for greater access to the water in the Che- sapeake region.

The strategy explicitly calls for the National Park Service, in conjunction with the watershed states and other federal agencies, to “develop a public access plan to inform and guide expansion of Chesapeake watershed public access.” Further, the strategy directs the plan to assess the demand for public access; describe (inventory) the existing public access facilities; assess barriers to public access; determine gaps in the public access system; identify opportunities for new access sites; and help direct federal, state, and local funding toward public access opportunities.

This Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan serves these purposes. The plan was produced in concert with a Public Access Action Team, which includes people involved in public access planning and implementation in each of the Chesapeake watershed states and the District of Columbia. They worked with National Park Service staff, helped guide the planning process, and participated in key decisions with respect to scope and definitions. Team members also served as the primary contacts and reviewers of data as it related to their specific jurisdictions.

Specifically, the plan covers all tidal streams and bays with boating opportunities; streams classified as “fifth-order” and higher; and streams smaller than fifth-order when they are part of a water trail or contribute to its development. ii Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Executive Summary

Public access sites are locations owned and managed by a public entity (or a nonprofit organization in an agreement with a public entity) providing the following:

• Boat-related access: boat ramps, car-top boat launches, soft launches (supporting paddle craft, motor, and/or sail boats) • Swimming access: designated areas appropriate for swimming • Fishing access: piers, bank fishing facilities or easements, and parking adjacent to the water • Viewing access for water, wildlife, and shoreline areas: nature trails, hiking or biking trails, waterfront trails, boardwalks, and observation decks located at or leading to the water’s edge.

Through an extensive process involving review of existing local, state, and federal data, public workshops and an online public mapping tool, this plan describes the status of existing public access as follows:

• There are 1,150 documented existing public access sites where people can launch boats, fish, swim, or look out over the Bay and its tributaries. About a third of these sites provide more than one types of access. • The number of access sites is very low in comparison to the amount of shoreline in the Chesapeake watershed. There are just 770 existing access sites along the shorelines of the Bay and tidal portions of its tributaries, a combined length of 11,684 miles— equivalent to the distance along the United States’ west coast from Mexico to Canada. • Multiple studies and plans, including all state outdoor recreation plans, continue to document high public demand for access to streams, rivers, and bays. • Significant stretches of shoreline have little or no access. In some cases, the gap between sites is dozens of miles. For example, the southern bank of the tidal James River includes a 64-mile NPS/Spielmann stretch with no regularly open access sites. And there are long stretches of the Rappahannock, Potomac, Susquehanna, Nanti- coke and other rivers, as well as the shoreline of the Bay where the public has little or no access to the water. Long, inaccessible stretches make it difficult to plan trips along water trails and reduce the benefits of ecotourism. A lack of public access also leads to trespassing, as users have no other option for getting on or off the water.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Executive Summary iii

• Less than half of access sites provide launches or landings for boats or paddle craft. • State agencies report significant overcrowding at trailerable boat launching facilities along the Bay and tidal tributaries. To identify potential new public access sites, the planning team reviewed existing planning documents to identify and assess all previously proposed potential sites, and members of the public identified hundreds of additional desired sites at workshops and online. The team reviewed and refined the list of these sites for this plan. This revealed that:

• 320 specific potential new sites have been identified for providing public access to the water. • Over half of these sites are already on publicly owned land. • Only a small fraction of these sites (5 percent) are categorized as “construction-ready.” The remainder requires either additional design and permitting or more substantial evaluation. • Boat launching capacity is the most frequently suggested access type for these sites (47 percent of the total sites). • The highest demand for new public access sites is frequently but not exclusively concentrated in and around urban areas. • A large number of potential sites are along existing water trails or national historic trails, which can often bring strong community and local support for developing needed sites. • Members of the paddling public frequently expressed a desire for small primitive campsites, picnic areas, and restrooms at appropriate locations along water trails.

The plan recognizes and documents a series of planning and policy considerations that will influence a strategic approach to expanding public NPS access. In addition, the plan sets out a series of actions for moving access development forward. These include:

1. Make funding for public access a priority. 2. Carry out and support more detailed assessments and project design for potential sites. 3. Fill strategic gaps in access along water trails. 4. Incorporate identified proposed public access sites and actions in key plans. 5. Further examine urban public access issues and needs. 6. Work with private sector funders to develop access. iv Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Executive Summary

7. Engage in hydropower re-licensing processes to expand public access. 8. Explore options for resolving railroad crossing liability. 9. Establish memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with transportation departments. 10. Explore potential for additional access on public lands. 11. Fully address accessibility at public access sites. 12. Build opportunities for citizen stewardship.

Implementing these actions and responding to the specific opportunities for adding access sites will expand the number of places for people to get to the water by more than 20 percent by 2025.

Ultimately, this undertaking is not just about adding more boat launches or fishing piers. It is about extending the scope and range of access to the water to greater and greater reaches. Citizens of the region want more places along the water where they can walk, sit, play, picnic, camp, swim, fish, watch wildlife, and put in their canoes, kayaks, paddleboards, sailboats, and powerboats. Public access to the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries is important to their quality of life.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Executive Summary v

(Intentionally blank for two-sided printing.)

vi Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Executive Summary

An Executive Order from President Obama triggered this plan to add 300 new public access sites to the Chesapeake Bay watershed by 2025.

NPS

I. Introduction The Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed was re- leased in May 2010, in response to Executive Order 13508 (Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration) issued by President Obama.1 This strategy includes a key goal to “Conserve Land and Increase Public Access.” Specifically, the strategy aims to increase public access to the Bay and its tributaries by adding 300 new public access sites by 2025. The basis for this goal lies in the long-standing public demand for greater access to the water in the Chesapeake region. The Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed explicitly calls for the National Park Service, in conjunction with the watershed states and other federal agencies, to “develop a public access plan to inform and guide expansion of Chesapeake watershed public access.” Fur- ther, the strategy calls for the plan to assess the demand for public access; describe (inventory) the existing public access facilities; assess barriers to public access; determine gaps in the public access system; identify opportunities for new access sites; and help direct federal, state, and local funding toward public access opportunities. This Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan serves these purposes. It was produced in concert with a Public Access Action Team, which includes people who are involved in public access planning and implementation in each of the Chesapeake watershed states and the District of Columbia. They worked with National Park Service staff on many aspects of the effort, helped guide the planning process, and participated in key decisions with respect to scope and definitions. Team members also served as the primary contacts and reviewers of data as it related to their jurisdictions. Over the following pages, the plan is organized to: • Summarize the demand for public access in the watershed.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Introduction 1

• Outline the process, steps, and definitions used for this plan. • Establish the baseline of existing public access sites. • Depict specific potential public access sites that could be developed in the future, as well as areas and stretches requiring additional attention. • Describe planning challenges to be considered in adding new access sites. • Summarize findings and set out next steps for implementing the plan and increasing access.

NPS/Rogers

2 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Introduction

The six Chesapeake watershed states and the District of Columbia have all noted a high need for additional public access opportunities.

NPS

II. The Demand for Public Access

Executive Order and America’s Great Outdoors Report

Open, green spaces and waterways with ample public access bolster public health and overall quality of life. People rely on these special places to exercise, relax, and recharge their spirits. Outdoor time strengthens family bonds and nurtures fit, creative children. At the same time, it builds personal connections with the places that have shaped life in the region for centuries—especially its streams, rivers, and bays. This has a distinct economic value, too, as tourism, much of it associated with the area’s waters, is a potent force in the region.

The sense of place that evolves from outdoor experiences along Chesa- peake waters often leads to a feeling of shared responsibility for these NPS/Rogers resources. As a result, people who enjoy the outdoors are more likely to

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Demand 3

become citizen stewards, engaged in the many conservation and stewardship efforts taking place throughout the region. Since a core Chesapeake restoration goal is to make the Bay and its tributaries “fishable and swimmable,” then public access to the water is both an end goal and a way to get there.

Despite this, the Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Wa- tershed clearly states that physical access to the Bay and its tributaries—the very resources that formed the basis for the Chesapeake’s unique identity—is limited. This has real consequences for quality of life, for the economy, and for long-term conservation.

Americans’ demand for access to water is echoed in the America’s Great NPS/Jett Outdoors (AGO) report.2 AGO listening session participants expressed strong support for their waterways and better access to water-based recreation. This resulted in a goal in the AGO report to “Empower communities to connect with America’s great outdoors through their rivers and other waterways.” Recommendations under this goal include establishing a national blueway trails initiative and facilitating recreational access to waterways. The report notes that many people cannot access their local water bodies due to physical barriers, unsafe conditions, or lack of awareness as to what may be close at hand. The America’s Great Outdoors Fifty-State Report, which outlines two specific actions to enhance people’s outdoor connections in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, has at least one action involving the enhancement of public water access in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Co- lumbia.3 Thus again, a strong need has been demonstrated to enhance public access opportunities for all segments of the population.

Demand and Need at the State and Local Levels

The six Chesapeake watershed states and the District of Columbia have all noted a high need for additional access in their State-wide Compre- hensive Outdoor Recreation Plans (SCORPS), public access plans, and boating infrastructure plans. In Virginia’s current SCORP, for example, the highest ranked outdoor recreation need is for better public access to the state’s waters.4 Throughout the six-state Bay region, water-based recreation—including fishing, all types of boating, swimming, and beach use—are among the top twelve activities based on the percent of the population participating in each activity. Wildlife observation and enjoy- ing a water-related view from observation decks or the water’s edge are also highly desirable. Economically, this is demonstrated by the higher

4 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • The Demand

fees users are willing to pay in some state park systems for campsites and cabins with water frontage. Picnic shelters, cabins, and campsites located on the water are the ones most requested and usually reserved first.

In the major tidal portions of the Bay region, there is major demand for additional boat ramps to handle trailered water craft. Many existing sites cannot handle the use they receive on summer weekends. This creates conflicts between users and also with site neighbors, as people park their cars and trailers along nearby roads once the parking area at the launch ramp is full.

Another indication of the demand for new access sites is the growing popularity of water trails. Pennsylvania’s SCORP, for example, shows that 45 percent of the people surveyed said there was a need for more water trails—not surprising, since participation in paddle sports has grown significantly over the past decade and is expected to continue.5 The Outdoor Foundation’s 2011 Outdoor Recreation Participation Report showed that participation in kayaking, paddle-boarding, and windsurfing increased by 33 percent in just the past year.6 In the Chesapeake watershed, a 2011 survey in Virginia found that canoeing and kayaking increased by over 70 percent in the last five years.7 In all six states in the Bay watershed and in the District of Columbia, numerous local agencies and organizations have worked with state and federal partners to develop new water trails. Today, there are more than 3,200 miles of water trails in the Chesapeake region. Many new trails are under consideration. Addi- tional public access sites are needed to support these trails, as well as those yet to be developed.

The demand for new access sites was clearly and consistently demonstrated during the public input meetings held for the development of this plan. On the average, participants identified over 25 needed access sites at each of the four workshops held in the Bay region. Additionally, an online survey received approximately 10,000 views during the month the survey was in process and the public submitted hundreds of potential new access sites on waterways throughout the study area.

Economic Benefit

According to the 2006 study The Active Outdoor Recreation Economy, paddle- based recreation and fishing alone have a total national economic value 8 of $97.5 billion. The 2011 report, The Economics Associated with Outdoor NPS/Jett Recreation, Natural Resources Conservation, and Historic Preservation in the United States, found that recreational power boating generated $32.5 billion in

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • The Demand 5

sales and services.9 Power boating, particularly on the Bay and its major tributaries, contributes about $5 billion to the area’s economy. Clearly, water-based recreational activities make important economic contribu- tions to states and localities across the Bay region. This drives the high demand and need to not only maintain what exists but also provide new access and support facilities for water-based recreation.

In addition to the ongoing need to develop new and maintain existing ramps and trailer parking for powered craft, a number of communities are also developing and promoting water trails as a part of their ecotourism initiatives. The development of appropriate access both up and downstream from these “trail towns” is important to their success. De- pending on the size of the waterway, these trails can include facilities to support paddle craft, trailerable power boats, or even larger cruising vessels. Each community promotes their trail and support amenities in an effort to attract tourism dollars. Partnerships are developed with state

James River Association agencies, local governments, non-profits, outfitters, and the food and lodging industry.

Success stories in this regard include the Mathews County Blueways, which has developed a series of water trails in the county and support services for visitors. Another example is the Susquehanna Greenway Partnership, which has just begun the Susquehanna River Towns Pro- gram. The program will provide technical assistance to towns along the Susquehanna River to develop events, ordinances that preserve the ripa- rian corridor along the river, and partnerships within the community to promote tourism. Delaware is developing and promoting the Nanticoke River Water Trail by working in partnership with Sussex County Tour- ism; the towns of Seaford, Blades, Laurel, and Bethel; and several nonprofit groups such as the Nanticoke River Watershed Alliance.

Communities throughout the region are undertaking activities to meet residents’ needs and boost tourism. For some, the emphasis may be on upgrading and/or maintaining their infrastructure to support both power and sail craft for popular traditional activities such as fishing or cruising. Others may be developing water trail projects and support facilities. Some are undertaking efforts to add or improve public parks along the water to support a variety of activities. No matter the path, success de- pends on the provision and maintenance of adequate public access and the services to support it.

6 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • The Demand

Connecting Families with Nature

Providing public access to the region’s waterways can play a key role in connecting people, especially families, with our natural world. This is be- coming more and more important as trends show that Americans are spending an average of 90 percent of their time indoors. Outdoor experiences have become particularly critical for children, who typically spend over 7.5 hours each day (53 hours each week) using electronic entertain- ment.10 This contributes to an increase in obesity and associated health problems, not to mention a loss in social and interpersonal skills.

New studies are showing that interaction with nature is important to personal development and human health. It cannot be replaced with indoor electronic gaming. New evidence gained from workplace, education, health, and childhood development studies is revealing that interaction with our natural world is far more important to sound development than some had previously thought. Access to public waters throughout the Bay region could help reconnect families with their natural world and all of the associated benefits that outdoor activities can bring.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • The Demand 7

(Intentionally blank for two-sided printing.)

8 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • The Demand

More than 150 of the potential new access sites listed in this plan were suggested by members of the public.

NPS/Spielmann

III. Planning Process and Parameters

Geographic Area

This plan reflects public access to significant streams, rivers, and bays in the entire Chesapeake watershed, including portions of Delaware, Mary- land, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and all of the Dis- trict of Columbia. No prior plan for the region has addressed this geographic scope. Past efforts under the Chesapeake Bay Program limited the inventory and tracking of public access sites to the Chesapeake Bay, its major tidal tributaries up to the fall line, and the mainstem of the Sus- quehanna River in Pennsylvania.

This plan uses a uniform definition of the water bodies covered by the plan to ensure a consistent planning process and facilitate future tracking efforts. There are three elements to this.

First, consistent with the past public access planning efforts of the Che- sapeake Bay Program, all tidal streams and bays with boating opportunities are included in the planning area.

Second, the plan covers “fifth-order streams” and higher, as shown on the map on page 10. Stream order is a system for classifying streams and rivers based on a scale of 1 to 12, with first-order streams being the smal- lest and twelfth-order the largest. Typically, first- through third-order streams are small headwater tributaries. The Amazon, largest river in the world, is a twelfth-order stream. Within the Chesapeake watershed, the lower Susquehanna and lower Potomac are seventh-order streams; the Chesapeake Bay Program Shenandoah River, a tributary of the Potomac, is a sixth-order stream; the York River is also a sixth-order stream, while one of its tributaries, the Pamunkey River, is a fifth-order stream. Fifth-order streams are large enough to offer canoe/kayak use during at least some part of the year.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Process 9

10 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Process

Finally, at the discretion of state planning staff, access sites can be considered on streams smaller than fifth-order when such streams are part of a water trail or contribute to its development.

Definition of Public Access and Types of Access Development

This plan recognizes that ownership and management responsibility of a public access site are key factors in planning for and funding public access development. Maintaining an accurate inventory of open, available public access sites—and their associated amenities—is a critical component for planning, marketing, and funding. For this reason, and to make a clear distinction between sites in the public estate versus those operated by others, public access sites are defined as those sites owned, operated, and/or managed expressly for a type of public access by:

1. Any unit of federal, state, or local government; or 2. A non-governmental organization operating under an agreement with a governmental agency.

Informal sites—those that may be on public land and used by the public NPS/Spielmann but which are not managed by an agency for access—are not counted as public access sites. To be counted, a site must be developed and expressly managed for a type of public access.

The types of access included in this plan are as follows:

Definition of New Public Access

For the purposes of this planning effort and future tracking, the following will be considered new public access sites that count towards the goal of developing 300 new sites by 2025:

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Process 11

• Development of a new public access facility on a site owned and operated by a governmental entity or non-governmental organization operating under an agreement with an entity of government • Development of a new type of access at an existing site, such as a fishing pier added to a site that currently has a boat ramp

If an informal site becomes officially recognized and managed by a public agency, it would then be counted as a new public access site.

Certain enhancements to existing public access are not counted as new access. For example, adding new parking, a restroom, picnic area, or other amenity to an existing site does not equate to a “new” site. To be counted as a new access site, a new type of access must be added to the NPS/Jett existing site.

Establishing the Baseline of Existing Access Sites

Developing the new baseline of existing access sites involved two steps:

1. Analysis by state and federal agencies: Participating agencies were provided with a spreadsheet showing a preliminary inventory of access sites along with a map of the study area showing fifth- order streams and higher. Sites were inventoried based on the four types of access used in this plan (boating access, fishing access, swimming access, and viewing access). The agency partners checked data on file and updated the spreadsheet and map with all existing sites that were missing from the list. 2. Public additions: During a public involvement process (described below), participants were asked in workshops and through an online tool to review the existing site maps and spreadsheets and to identify any existing sites that had been missed. Participating state and federal agencies reviewed these additions to ensure accuracy.

Data from these steps were used to establish and describe the new baseline of existing access sites, discussed in appendix A.

Public Involvement in Identifying Access Sites

An extensive effort was made to ask members of the public where access is needed, as well as to probe their knowledge of existing sites. This process was handled in two ways. First, four public meetings took place in key urban areas, including Baltimore, Maryland; Richmond, Virginia;

12 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Process

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; and Washington, D.C. At each of these meetings, the public was invited to note on maps locations where new access was desired. This process resulted in the identification of over 100 potential access sites.

Second, a new web-based tool was developed to allow anyone with In- ternet access to identify the location of a potential access site and list the type(s) of access desired at that site. This tool was active for one month, receiving over 10,000 hits and suggestions for more than 400 potential access sites. This innovation in obtaining public feedback allowed for a much broader range of public participation and demonstrated strong public interest in water access.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Process 13

(Intentionally blank for two-sided printing.)

14 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Process

The combined shoreline of the Bay and its tidal tributaries totals 11,684 miles—equivalent to the distance along the United States’ west coast from Mexico to Canada.

NPS/Rogers

IV. Current Status of Public Access in the Chesapeake Watershed

This section illustrates the following major points:

• There are 1,150 documented existing public access sites where people can launch boats, fish, swim, or look out over the Bay and its tributaries. • On average, sites are about 15 miles apart, creating significant stretches of shoreline with no access. In some cases, the gap between sites is dozens of miles. • About one-third of the sites provide multiple types of access. • Less than half of the sites provide launches or landings for boats or paddle craft.

This plan documents 1,150 existing public access sites in the Chesapeake watershed as of September 2011, making it the most extensive inventory to date of current public access sites in the region.11 That said, some existing sites managed by local governments have likely escaped documen- tation through this process. As these sites are identified in the future, they will be added to the inventory as previously existing sites.

The map on page 17 shows the location of all existing public access sites documented through this inventory (see also table 1).

A total of 1,150 public access sites might seem like a reasonable number for the area. In the context of a 64,000 square-mile watershed with 17 million residents, however, this is not the case.

• While there are 770 existing access sites along the shorelines of the Chesapeake Bay and the tidal portions of its tributaries, this combined tidal shoreline totals 11,684 miles—equivalent

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Current Status 15

to the distance along the United States’ west coast from Mex- ico to Canada. • The average distance between public access sites along the tidal shoreline is over 15 miles. In many cases it is much higher: along the southern bank of Virginia’s James River, between City Point Park in Hopewell and Chippokes State Park, there are no regularly open public access sites in a span of approximately 64 miles. • Along the east bank of the Susquehanna River, between the confluence of the West Branch and the town of Tunkhannock, there are only two sites along 96 miles of riverbank, resulting in an average distance of 32 miles between sites. NPS/Rogers • For those who wish to launch boats, the travel distance between access sites can be even more extreme, as only 43 percent of existing access sites provides facilities for putting boats, canoes, or kayaks into the water.

It is difficult to visualize gaps between public access sites on a watershed- wide scale when long distances are compressed to fit on a page. The map on page 18 offers one representation of the distribution of access sites. It depicts the average distance between access sites along the riverbank or shoreline of river segments and the Bay.12

Table 1: Existing Public Access Sites

Jurisdiction Number

District of Columbia 23 Delaware 6 Maryland 578 New York 26 Pennsylvania 183 Virginia 290 West Virginia 44 Total 1,150

16 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Current Status

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Current Status 17

18 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Current Status

It is important to remember that actual distances between sites vary and the Figure 1: Existing Public Access Sites that actual length of the shoreline is greater Provide Multiple Types of Recreation 1% than it might appear. 1 Type of Access 8% Approximately 91 percent of the exist- 2 Types of Access ing public access sites are located in 26% 3 Types of Access Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. 65% This is not surprising since these states 4 Types of Access make up about 85 percent of the land mass in the study area.

The highest density of existing public access sites is generally around the ma- Figure 2: Types of Recreation at jor population centers of these states Existing Public Access Sites that have reasonable proximity to water resources. The densest concentrations Boat 5% 16% of existing access sites are around Bal- 42% Fish timore and Annapolis, Maryland; in the Swim Washington, D.C./ Alexandria, Virginia 37% View area; the Hampton-Norfolk area; and around Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. For example, a city effort to establish “street-end parks” at the water is one reason why Spa Creek in Annapo- lis, Maryland, has 17 sites along 7.5 miles of shoreline—an average of one site every four-tenths of a mile.

About one third of existing public access sites throughout the Chesa- peake watershed offer multiple types of recreational experiences (fig. 1). Specifically, 303 of the 1,150 existing public access sites offer two types of access, 95 sites offer three types of access, and five sites offer all four types of recreational access. The remaining 747 sites offer a single type of recreational access.

There are 699 existing public access sites that offer boating access (42 percent of total sites), 614 sites that offer fishing access, 267 sites that offer viewing access, and 78 sites that offer swimming access (fig. 2). It is worth noting that viewing and swimming occur at many sites not specifically designed for these uses.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Current Status 19

(Intentionally blank for two-sided printing.)

20 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Current Status

This plan identified 320 potential access opportunities in the Bay region, and the list will be regularly updated with new suggestions.

NPS/Jett

V. Potential Public Access Sites in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

This section describes potential locations for new public access sites in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It illustrates the following points:

• Over 300 specific potential new sites have been identified for providing public access to the water, based on public input and local, state, and federal agency planning documents. • Over half of these sites are already on publicly owned land. • Only a small fraction of these sites (5 percent) are categorized as “construction-ready.” The remainder requires either additional design and permitting or more substantial evaluation. • Boat launching capacity is the most frequently suggested access type for these sites (47 percent of the recreation suggestions).

Identification of the potential public access sites occurred through three major steps:

1. Assessment of state plans: State members of the Public Access Ac- tion Team reviewed existing planning documents to identify and assess all previously proposed potential public access sites.

2. Public identification of desired access: Members of the public identified hundreds of desired access sites during the public outreach portion of this effort. They also indicated many stretches of shoreline or riverbank where access is desired, but without suggesting specific locations for new sites.

Over 500 potential access sites were identified through the steps above.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Potential Sites 21

3. Action Team review: The Public Access Action Team refined the list of potential sites by carefully reviewing all of the submitted information. In some instances, the same site was recommended several times by different sources. In other cases, a recommended site already existed and was moved to the inventory of existing sites if it had not already been captured. Some sites had already been investigated and found unsuitable; others were submitted without enough information to adequately identify them, and they were deleted from the list.

The full process resulted in a final list of 320 potential access opportunities in the Bay region. However, the identification of potential PA DCNR access sites is not a closed or static process. New opportunities for access will continue to be identified over time by citizens, non- governmental organizations, and local, state, and federal government. These will be incorporated in future updates to the data supporting this plan.

Table 2: Existing & Potential Public Access Sites Jurisdiction Existing Potential

District of Columbia 23 4 Delaware 6 6 Maryland 578 103

New York 26 1 Pennsylvania 183 88 Virginia 290 118 West Virginia 44 0 Total 1,150 320

Grouping Potential Sites by Readiness

This plan groups potential access sites by readiness for development:

• Category 1 - Sites that are essentially ready for construction, with planning and permitting generally complete • Category 2 – Sites that still require some additional planning and review before they could be developed • Category 3 – Sites that need substantial analysis and planning before they could be developed

22 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Potential Sites

Public access is often opportunistic and a site not identified in the plan could become available, generate support, and move to a category 1. Al- so, a category 3 site could be more critical for access than a category 1 site; if the support and funding materializes it could become a priority. Potential sites identified in the future will be added to the plan in the appropriate category. In short, this plan groups sites based on how quickly they could be developed if funding were made available. This plan could not and does not rank sites from lowest to highest priority. The map on page 24 depicts the potential public access sites by category. A table listing each potential site is in appendix B.

Analysis of Potential Access Sites NPS Of the 320 potential public access sites identified in this plan, 38 percent were identified from prior local, state, and federal agency planning processes; the remaining 62 percent were suggested by the public. Of the potential sites, approximately 97 percent (309 sites) are located in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. These states have the largest land mass in the watershed. Six potential sites were identified in Delaware, four in the District of Columbia, and one in New York. None were identified in West Virginia (see table 2). Not surprisingly, the majority of potential sites require significant additional investigation before any development could proceed; as a result, 66 percent of the potential sites were placed in category 3. Twenty-nine percent falls into category 2, which consists of sites that need some additional planning and permit review before they could be developed. At the time this plan was developed, only 5 percent of the potential sites were nearly “construction-ready” and placed in category 1 (fig. 3).

Figure 3: Potential Public Access Sites Grouped by Readiness 5%

Category 1 29% Category 2 66% Category 3

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Potential Sites 23

24 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Potential Sites

There were nine in Pennsylvania, six in Virginia, and one in the District of Columbia (fig. 4).

Figure 4: Potential New Public Access Sites by State and Plan Category

100 Maryland 80 Virginia 60 Pennsylvania

40 Delaware District of Columbia 20 New York 0 Category 1 Category 2 Category 3

Approximately 57 percent of the potential sites had more than one type of recreational access suggested. At approximately 30 percent of the sites, two types of recreational use were proposed. At 23 percent of the sites, three types of recreation were proposed. At 4 percent of the sites, all four types of recreational usage were proposed. A single recreational use was proposed for approximately 43 percent of the potential new public access sites (fig. 5).

Figure 5: Percentage of Potential New Public Access Sites that Provide Multiple Types of Recreation 4%

1 Type of Access 23% 43% 2 Types of Access 3 Types of Access

30% 4 Types of Access

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Potential Sites 25

While there were often multiple types of recreational uses suggested for a site, some uses were recommended more than others. Throughout the watershed, boating access was the most frequently suggested recreation type (47 percent) followed by fishing (27 percent), viewing (22 percent), and swimming (4 percent) (fig. 6).

Figure 6: Percentage of Proposed Public Access Sites by Recreation Type

Boating 22% Fishing 4% 47% Swimming

27% Viewing

Watershed-wide, boating access was also the most “construction- ready” recreation type, accounting for just over half of both the category 1 and category 2 sites. Swimming access was consistently the least proposed recreational use and had the fewest number of category 1 sites (fig. 7).

Figure 7: Proposed Public Access Sites by Recreation Type and Plan Category 200

150 Category 1

Category 2 100

Category 3 50

0 Boat Fish Swim View

26 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Potential Sites

Ten percent of the proposed sites are on land owned by federal agencies; 13 percent on land owned by state agencies; 30 percent on locally owned land; and 18 percent on privately held land. For the remaining 29 percent of the potential sites, the land ownership has yet to be determined. These sites were suggested by members of the public who couldn’t identify the property owners but believed they would make good access locations (fig. 8).

Figure 8: Current Ownership of Potential New Public Access Sites

Federal 10% 29% Local Government

30% Private

13% State 18% Unknown

Final ownership cannot be determined without evaluating detailed parcel information, which is beyond the scope of this plan. Most sites are likely privately owned; however, a sizeable number may be located in public rights of way near roads and bridges. These ownership patterns suggest that the majority of new public access site development, in the near term, will likely take place at the local level, though funding will likely be leve- raged though federal, state, and private sources.

Geographic Areas with a High Interest in Public Access

The map on page 29 illustrates the concentrations of potential public access sites. The warmer colors indicate a high concentration of proposed sites. Geographic areas that received a high number of site suggestions include:

1. Dundalk/Edgemere area of Baltimore County, Maryland 2. Annapolis, Maryland 3. Along the Sassafras River and main stem of the Chesapeake Bay south of the Sassafras River, Maryland 4. Area surrounding the Nanticoke River in Delaware and Maryland

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Potential Sites 27

5. Anacostia and Potomac Rivers in Washington, DC, and Arling- ton, Virginia 6. Fort Monroe in Hampton, Virginia 7. Colonial National Historic Park Area, Virginia 8. Along the Nansemond River, Virginia 9. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 10. Raystown Branch of the Juniata River, Pennsylvania 11. Area surrounding Altoona, Pennsylvania

The shoreline areas surrounding Baltimore County and Annapolis, Mary- land, received the highest density of public access site suggestions in the Chesapeake watershed.

The highest demand for new public access sites is frequently but not exclusively concentrated around urban centers, as the map on page 29 and the list above shows. With their close proximity to major cities, the development of new public access sites in these areas could provide increased public access for a large, diverse population. Providing urban residents with public access to waterways is also a federal priority that has been called out in the Urban Waters initiative, America’s Great Outdoors report, and the National Park Service’s A Call to Action.13

28 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Potential Sites

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Potential Sites 29

Potential Sites In Relation to Existing Water Trails

Because of the significant development of existing water trails in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, it is useful to understand how potential future access sites might relate to those trails. This plan shows how the potential access sites link with the Captain John Smith Chesapeake Na- tional Historic Trail, the Star Spangled Banner National Historic Trail, Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail, and Chesapeake Bay Gateways water trails. The map on page 31 shows the existing trails with respect to the locations of the potential new public access sites. Development of any new sites along these trails will not only contribute to meeting the goal of 300 new sites, but also support a network of trails that can provide a broader depth of experiences to visitors by strengthening the connections between a location and its historical and/or environmental importance.

30 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Potential Sites

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Potential Sites 31

Camping and Related Water‐to‐Land Access

In addition to the high public demand for new water access sites for boating, fishing, swimming, beach use, and viewing, there is also a strong interest in accessing camp sites from the water. Making a multi-day trip down one of the Bay’s rivers can be difficult without a place to go ashore and camp for the night. Time and again, members of the paddling public expressed a desire for small primitive campsites, picnic areas, and restrooms at appropriate locations along water trails.

A system of appropriately planned water-access campsites would provide safe and legal places for boaters to stay. It could also enhance the ecotourism benefits of water trails and bring more dollars into the local NPS/Spielmann economy. Such sites could be located on public or private lands, through cooperative agreements with water trail managers.

Input from the public meetings, online survey tool, and state-led studies also revealed a full spectrum of access needs beyond the traditional land- to-water access. The growing interest in water trails extends to adding capacity for boaters to access historic sites, other important sites along waterways, food services, lodging, and other amenities. Detailing the needs and opportunities for these types of access is beyond the scope of this plan but merits attention in the future.

32 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Potential Sites

Successful water trails provide visitors with information on history, culture, and natural resources, as well as appropriate public access at needed intervals along the route.

NPS/Jett

VI. Planning and Policy Considerations

This plan is not intended as a general guide to public access planning. However, information gleaned through creating this plan brings to light a number of points to be considered when setting out a strategic approach to public access development. Some are factors or opportunities related to development of new public access sites. Others have the potential to impact existing sites. Each will require the attention of public access advocates and managers in planning strategies that address them.

Providing Public Access in Urban Areas

Some of the highest demand for additional public access is expressed in locations in and nearby urban areas, as illustrated in the map on page 29.

The nature of public access in urban environments is different from that of more rural settings. Development and urbanization of waterfronts, economic and social influences, population density, transportation systems, concentrated water pollution, and different levels of commitment to public access all combine to present substantially different circumstances and call for unique strategies. A few illustrative examples:

• The vast majority of the lengthy shoreline of Annapolis, Mary- land, is privately owned and developed for commercial or resi- dential use (with the exception of the US Naval Academy). This substantially restricts public access to the water. However, many city streets have historically ended at the water. A unique city initiative started in the 1960s focused on turning these “street ends” into small pocket parks on the water. Today there are more NPS/Jett than 20 such parks, all providing views of the water and many providing boat docks, launching areas, and gathering spots.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Planning & Policy 33

• Much of the shoreline around Hampton Roads, Virginia, is dom- inated by military, industrial, and commercial development, limiting locations for public access. With the impending phase-out of military control of Fort Monroe, a broad and motivated coalition advocated to convert the base to a public park. As a result, Fort Monroe National Monument was established in November 2011 on approximately half of the base’s original area, which could significantly enhance public access to both Chesapeake Bay beachfront and Mill Creek.

• There is substantial public land along portions of the Anacostia River in Washington, DC. However, highways, development patterns, water pollution, and lesser levels of public investment have historically reduced access to and use of the river by area resi- NPS/Ross dents. New attention on restoring and enhancing Washington’s “other river” has the potential to revive access to the Anacostia. Comprehensive planning for access sites, water trail development, and other elements are guiding new strategies for this river.

• Baltimore’s Patapsco River waterfront is a major commercial shipping port. Yet it is also a central attraction for visitors and residents, many drawn by the extensive Inner Harbor promenade. The city has developed a Maritime Master Plan, which establishes policies for the orderly development of recreational boating in the harbor while minimizing the potential for conflicts between commercial and recreational vessels. It identifies specific locations for recreational marinas, including type, size, and land area.

These examples highlight some of the special planning, design, and civic engagement considerations needed for urban access development. There is a further consideration as well.

Assessing socio-economic patterns in relation to public access can illumi- nate areas where access is most needed. For example, the Maryland De- partment of Natural Resources identified communities where children are underserved by public parks. While parks are different from water access sites, the principles used in the study are illustrative. The “Park Equity Analysis” is built upon US Census data combined with statewide layers identifying public and local parks.14 The model prioritizes underserved areas of Maryland in need of park space by identifying locations with:

• High concentration of children under the age of 16 • High concentration of populations below the poverty line

34 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Planning & Policy

• High population density • Low access to public park space

The analysis provides a fairly fine-grained identification of areas in most need of access to parks, most of which are in urban areas. Similar analys- es could be developed to assess water access needs.

Water Trails as Motivators for Site Development

The number of water trails has increased significantly over the past decade with many local groups, communities, and government agencies playing a role in their development. Their increase in popularity can be tied to in- NPS/Jett creased participation in paddle sports and a growth in use of trailerable power boats as a means to explore the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. They are also of interest to outfitters and tourism businesses. Well- planned and developed water trails contribute to an area’s eco-tourism opportunities, drawing people from throughout a region to spend time and money along the trail.

Successful water trails, in addition to providing visitors with support facilities and information on history, culture, and natural resources, also provide appropriate public access at needed intervals along the route. Water trails with appropriately planned access can also help resolve user conflicts, as trail users are provided with needed facilities and encouraged to respect private property.

Designated water trails cover more than 3,200 miles of rivers and the open Bay in the Chesapeake watershed, many of these in relatively rural areas. The vast majority of potential access sites documented in this plan are along existing water trails.

New access sites are often needed to fill long gaps between existing sites and make a trail truly functional. Strategic assessments of access priorities along a trail route are key, including consideration of the sites’ proximity to users, the ways in which a new site might affect carrying capacity in that area, and opportunities for redistributing use and reducing crowds at overused sites.

When there is strong local support for a water trail, effort is directed towards finding and developing the needed sites. Water trails often lead to partnerships among user groups, localities, local businesses, and state/federal agencies. Thus, water trails are often a catalyst for access development that may not have occurred otherwise.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Planning & Policy 35

Use Conflicts

Conflicts among users tend to develop when a site is designated or perceived to be designated for one use and is subsequently used in other ways. For example, people who are fishing, picnicking, or swimming may use a boat launch pier or parking area and conflict with those trying to launch or retrieve boats.

Conflicts also arise among users based on who is perceived to have paid for the access site. The great majority of boat ramps are paid for through registration fees and in some states from the excise tax collected from power boat owners. With the rapid growth in paddle craft use, more

NPS paddlers launch from ramps and use parking spaces that were traditionally used by power boaters. Some power boat operators complain that the use of facilities they paid for is hampered by paddlers who have made no direct investment in the facility.

In Virginia, a new fee has been approved to address this issue. In conjunction with its Wildlife Management Areas, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) owns and manages many boat launches and access sites. Starting in 2012, anyone age 17 or older using a DGIF Wildlife Management Area facility must have a valid fishing license, hunting license, boat registration, or access permit. Access permits cost $4.00 per day or $23.00 per year. The funds from this program will support development and management of DGIF sites.15

Conflicts also occur when use of an access site impacts or may be perceived to impact adjacent landowners. For example, if the parking at an access site is full, users might park on the side of the road in a way that impacts local residents. Residents of some communities may also object to a proposed access site because they fear adverse impacts such as ex- cessive noise or litter. As news of real or perceived conflicts spread, the development of nearby access sites can be difficult.

These issues point to the need for local land use plans and other planning documents to detail the importance of potential access sites and have them clearly marked on local comprehensive plans. Such action helps preserve the development of needed access sites in the future. Public access plans must consider potential use conflicts and select locations and designs that minimize them.

36 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Planning & Policy

Railroads

Railroad tracks are a major barrier that limits access to many rivers in the Bay watershed, sometimes on both riverbanks. Railroad companies are generally opposed to granting at-grade crossings of rail lines for either vehicles or pedestrians, stating liability as their primary concern. If approved, a fully developed road crossing must be provided, with an auto- matic warning signal and gates that close off the road when a train approaches. Such crossings are expensive to build and have long-term maintenance and operational costs, making development of many access sites prohibitively expensive. This is particularly the case for paddle craft landings, where a small road crossing or even a pedestrian crossing is all that is needed.

Some states have enacted legislation indemnifying railroads from liability when they grant an at-grade crossing for public access. Railroads have argued this does not prevent a suit from being filed in another state should a user of the crossing be injured by a passing train. User groups and state partners involved in preparing this plan have suggested that federal legislation limiting railroads’ liability when allowing public access crossings may be a viable solution. A resolution to this issue could open up many new miles of access opportunities on major rivers in the Bay watershed.

Access at Public Lands

Public lands, whether held by local, state, or federal government, provide many opportunities for access to streams, rivers, and the Bay. In some cases this access is relatively unlimited. In others there may be conflicts between public access and resource management, or access may be limited due to insufficient staffing levels or restrictions imposed by the type of funding used in the property’s acquisition or development.

Nonetheless, public workshops revealed considerable concern over the limitations imposed on some public lands. In order to meet the public access goals expressed in Executive Order 13508 and the Strategy for Pro- NPS/Jett tecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, public lands at the federal, state, and local level with frontage on streams and rivers should be re- evaluated on a unit-by-unit basis for their potential to add public access opportunities.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Planning & Policy 37

Permitting Requirements

Many public access managers and advocates reported that plan development, regulatory, and permitting requirements can have a major impact on the development of new access sites. Therefore federal, state, and local permitting authorities should consider expedited review procedures for some types of access site development. New public access sites need to be developed in an environmentally sensitive manner and permitting agencies should consider methods such as simplified permitting procedures, pre-approved design guidelines, and a review of appropriate mitigation requirements. The goal should be for a process that allows partners to work together efficiently and cost NPS/Spielmann effectively when developing new public access opportunities.

Universal Accessibility

Public access sites are subject to federal and state guidelines for ensuring access by a population with diverse physical capabilities. It is the responsibility of access site managers to comply with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended. The high visibility of the accessibility law has generated a wide range of public interest and pressure to bring facilities into compliance. When facilities and programs are “universally designed” to serve all people, accessibility is generally enhanced for everyone.

Specific requirements will vary depending on the facilities and programs offered at the public access site. Early planning is important to evaluate opportunities to construct and operate the facilities and programs so they are accessible to, and useable by, persons with disabilities to the greatest extent reasonable. Accessibility accommodations should respond to the site context and conditions and be consistent with resource protection, visitor safety, and visitor experience goals. When marketing the site, it is most important to objectively and effectively describe the site conditions and abilities necessary for safe use, so that all potential users can make informed travel decisions. National Park Service staff and state public access coordinators can assist in evaluating accessibility accommodations.

Hydropower Licensing

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issues licenses for all hydropower projects. One component of a license or a license renewal

38 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Planning & Policy

is the provision of outdoor recreation. The licensing process can dictate that a power company provides public access sites either on the reservoir or on the waterways that feed the reservoir. In some cases, additional sites may not be needed on the main reservoir or a suitable site may not be available. In such instances, funding can be available to help construct new sites within or adjacent to the power company’s service area. This funding may leverage support from other sources to enhance the number of sites that can be developed.

Hydropower licenses are typically issued for extended periods of time, some as long as 50 years. Re-licensing should not be a missed opportunity. State agencies involved in these licensing or re-licensing processes should make the case for increased public access as a part of the new license agreement. Some of the states in the Chesapeake watershed have already had success in developing new access through the FERC process.

State and Local Planning Documents

State and local comprehensive plans present an important opportunity for advancing proposed public access sites and actions to support them. They set out the guidance the state or community seeks to follow over time. Proposed access sites and public access policies should be incorporated, as appropriate, into these documents, including Statewide Com- prehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans (SCORPs) and local comprehensive land use and capital improvement plans. Projects referenced in federal, state, and local planning documents demonstrate a higher level of importance when funding is being considered.

Working Waterfronts

Many of the Chesapeake’s older working waterfronts are being lost. Sea- food docks and oyster and crab processing facilities are closed. Adaptive reuse or rehabilitation of these structures could provide opportunities for recreational use and access in an impacted area. The sites could contribute to heritage and ecotourism, offering both new public access sites and appropriate support services. Where appropriate, the structures NPS/Jett themselves could be used as interpretive tools to explain the life of the working waterman and those who support the Bay’s seafood industry. They may also serve as docking and equipment storage sites for those who are still active in the fishing and crabbing business—or for outfitters and guides providing access and tour services. Such action may also help to maintain the working waterfront setting and increase the livability of

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Planning & Policy 39

these old waterfront communities. Waterfronts and facilities of this type should be inventoried and evaluated for a possible future use as public access sites.

Transportation Improvements and Public Access

Many road projects involve bridges that cross streams or rivers with recreational value or closely parallel such resources. It can be extremely useful to establish a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the state’s recreation/resources agency and its Department of Transportation (DOT), recognizing the value of public access planning as a component of such projects. Access might consist of nothing more than safe shoul- der parking with a walkable path to the water’s edge for fishing or launching paddle craft, a bridge with a safe fishing area, or a ramp and parking area located under a bridge.

Generally speaking, the incremental cost of adding a public access site into a bridge or road project is fairly small, since much of the work is already done in conjunction with the DOT project. If the DOT is alerted to the potential of adding access into the transportation project early in the process and if a funding source is identified to cover the expense, these projects can cost much less than they would otherwise cost if done as an independent project at a later time.

MOUs with DOTs could involve three key components:

1. A system for early coordination and review of proposed projects to determine which ones have public access potential; this should also include a timeline for review and the identification of the state resource agency that will review the plan as it relates to public access.

2. Early identification of a source to cover the incremental cost of the access project so the DOT knows the project can proceed

NPS/Rogers and can be covered in their construction planning. 3. A process for identifying the managing entity for the completed project. Generally speaking, the DOTs do not wish to manage public access sites, so the MOU should contain a process for de- termining who will take on the management and maintenance of the site once it is completed.

40 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Planning & Policy

Funding Sources, Issues, and Strategies

There are a number of funding sources for the development of public access sites, including all levels of government and the private sector. An annotated list of common sources is in appendix C of this plan.

Public sector funding for access sites has been more limited in recent years. This has hampered the development of new sites and created a backlog of major maintenance projects. It is now harder for some public agencies to justify new site development when they cannot keep up with maintenance on existing sites. Maintenance problems have in turn reduced use of some sites that suffer from channel siltation or storm dam- age but lack funding to make necessary repairs. Of particular concern are reductions in federal funding for maintaining shallow water navigation NPS/Jett channels. This may well result in the loss of some existing boating opportunities as channels fill in and recreational boats are no longer able to use existing facilities. Loss of these channels would have a major impact on power boating and the significant economic value it brings to the region. As existing sites are lost, the value of adding new sites is diminished. It is clearly evident that a strong and stable funding source for the development and maintenance of public access sites is needed.

Setting Access as a Grant Program Priority

One strategy to encourage development of access sites is to prioritize funding such projects in competitive state and federal grant programs. This encourages applicants to look for projects that include access and thus receive higher scores in the competitive grant rounds. Public access projects would then be a priority in the grantmaking process, which will help to meet the goal of establishing 300 new public access sites by 2025. A similar approach could be used for grants administered by cooperating federal agencies to develop outdoor recreational facilities.

Non‐Traditional Funding Partners

Traditional groups such as Trout Unlimited, sportsmen’s clubs, watershed associations, and river user organizations will continue to be important partners in developing new public access. However, expanding access may also hinge on developing partnerships with groups and organizations not traditionally involved with developing public access sites. For example, both education and health agencies have acknowledged the importance of healthier lifestyles to reduce diseases associated with obesity. Attention deficit disorder has been linked to children losing their connec-

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Planning & Policy 41

tion with the outdoors and spending large amounts of time on electronic media. Health and education agencies have funds to combat these issues; public access projects provide one means of partnering with them to meet shared goals.

Opportunities may also exist with designated state or national heritage areas. The development of new public access to waters within a heritage area may well contribute to established goals, while encouraging funds and support from groups that contribute to the heritage area.

Corporate America has long been a partner in supporting arts and hu- manities projects. In the Chesapeake watershed, some corporations or their foundations are now contributing to development of public access projects. They may own waterfront land that would be suitable for access and would be willing to make it available if the proper partnership for development and management were put in place. In other instances, a corporation may be willing to cover a portion of the cost for a new access site if it is located in their company’s market area. Partnerships of this nature should be explored.

42 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Planning & Policy

Fifty‐three percent of the potential new public access sites are on lands already in the public ownership making them ideal candidates for further investigation.

NPS

VII. Summary and Next Steps

The information gathered during the development of this public access plan resulted in a series of key findings and next steps.

Findings

• Multiple studies and plans, including all state outdoor recreation plans, continue to document high public demand for access to streams, rivers, and bays. • This plan establishes a new 2011 inventory of 1,150 public access sites along the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries (fifth-order streams or higher). These sites provide boating, fishing, swimming, or viewing access to the water, or some combination of these activities. • The number of access sites is very low in comparison to the amount of shoreline in the Chesapeake watershed. There are just 770 existing access sites along the shorelines of the Bay and tidal portions of its tributaries, a combined length of 11,684 miles— equivalent to the distance along the United States’ west coast from Mexico to Canada. • There are many large lengths of shoreline where little or no public access currently exists—the southern bank of the tidal James River includes a 64-mile stretch with no regularly open access sites. Long, inaccessible stretches make it difficult to plan trips NPS/Jett along water trails and reduce the benefits of ecotourism. A lack of public access may lead to trespassing, as users may believe they have no other option for getting on or off the water. • State agencies report significant overcrowding at trailerable boat launching facilities along the Bay and tidal tributaries.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Endnotes 43

• This plan documents 320 potential public access sites identified by the public and through state access plans. These sites provide a basis for achieving the goal of adding 300 new public access sites by 2025. • Ninety-seven percent of the potential public access sites are in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, which constitute the largest land mass of the Bay watershed. • Fifty-three percent of the potential new public access sites are on lands already in the public ownership making them ideal candidates for further investigation. • While there are often multiple types of recreational uses sug- NPS/Spielmann gested for a specific potential access site, some uses are recommended more than others. Boating access was most frequently suggested recreation type (47 percent of sites), followed by fishing (27 percent), viewing (22 percent), and swimming (4 percent). • The highest densities of potential public access sites are generally, but not exclusively, concentrated around urban centers, particularly the Baltimore/Annapolis area and Hampton Roads area. Development of new public access sites in these locations could provide increased public access for large, diverse populations. • The nature of public access in urban environments is substantially different from that of more rural settings. Urban areas require unique strategies, informed by additional, detailed analysis of community needs. Maryland’s Park Equity Analysis presents an interesting example of one approach to this analysis. • Most of the potential access sites are along thousands of miles of existing water trails and national trails (Captain John Smith, Star- Spangled Banner, Potomac Heritage). These trails present a substantial framework for advancing public access development, especially in more rural areas. • The identified potential sites fall into three general categories of readiness for development: − Category 1) ready to go, with planning and permitting generally complete − Category 2) requires some additional planning and review prior to development − Category 3) needs substantial site analysis and planning before development can proceed.

44 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Next Steps

• Only 5 percent of the 320 potential public access sites fall into category 1. Investments in detailed site assessments and project design and permitting are required for most potential sites if public access is to be expanded. • There are a number of planning and policy considerations that can influence the expansion of public access—hydropower re- licensing, changing funding streams, railroads, transportation projects, etc. These provide opportunities and, in some cases, challenges to address.

Moving Forward NPS/Spielmann Maintaining existing public access and adding 300 new sites along the streams, rivers, and bays of the Chesapeake watershed is no small task. Yet this plan sets out a pathway to achieve this goal; acting on the steps below will move the expansion of public access forward.

1. Make funding for public access a priority. Sustain funding for development of new sites and maintenance of existing sites, including maintenance dredging of small channels. Relevant state and federal funding or matching grant programs should target or give bonus points for projects that include new public access sites. For example, the National Park Service will continue to prioritize funding for public access site development in Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network grants. 2. Carry out and support more detailed assessments and project design for potential sites. Most of the 320 potential new sites identified in this plan require more detailed assessments and construction designs prior to implementation. Pre-planning and design of public access sites is a key step in their future development. This is an area in which funding is needed. Agencies at all levels should provide, within resource capabilities, technical assistance, and funding for site design and analysis. 3. Fill strategic gaps in access along water trails. The National Park Ser- vice will work with partners to identify, prioritize, and develop sites that fill public access gaps along the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, Star-Spangled Banner Na- tional Historic Trail, Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail, and the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. 4. Incorporate identified proposed public access sites and actions in key plans. Elements of this plan, including potential public access sites and

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Next Steps 45

key actions, should be incorporated as appropriate into major state outdoor recreation and open space planning documents, such as Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans (SCORPs). Partners should encourage local governments to incorporate potential public access sites and policies in local comprehensive and capital improvement plans. 5. Further examine urban public access issues and needs. Recognizing the complex factors associated with expanding access in urban communities, governments at the local, state, and federal levels should support and pursue studies assessing specific urban access issues and needs. 6. Work with private sector funders to develop access. Many companies and foundations often have objectives that can be advanced through partnerships to develop public access sites and facilities. There are numerous examples in the Chesapeake watershed. Public access managers and advocates should actively work with private sector funders on access projects. 7. Engage in hydropower re-licensing processes to expand public access. Re- licensing of existing hydropower projects provides significant opportunities for expanding access to the water. Local, state, and federal agencies should participate in re-licensing processes to make the case for specific public access projects as a part of new license agreements. 8. Explore options for resolving railroad crossing liability. Railroads along rivers—and associated liability concerns over track crossings— limit water access. Some states have indemnified railroads from liability at at-grade crossings for public access purposes, but suggest that federal action to limit liability may be needed to address the railroads’ concerns. 9. Establish memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with transportation departments. Many road projects across or adjacent to streams or rivers could provide public access opportunities. Where they do not yet exist, a state’s recreation/resources agencies and its department of transportation should consider establishing an MOU to ensure such opportunities are not missed. NPS/Rogers 10. Explore potential for additional access on public lands. Management objectives and practices on public lands may not account for recent changes in access needs and opportunities. As circumstances permit, managers of public lands fronting streams and rivers should re-evaluate these lands’ public access potential. This can

46 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Next Steps

occur through regular master planning processes or as ad hoc assessments. 11. Fully address accessibility at public access sites. Public access sites are subject to federal and state guidelines for ensuring access by a population with diverse physical capabilities. Yet it is not always clear how some of these guidelines may apply, particularly to boating access sites. The National Park Service should work with its many partners to clarify approaches to addressing accessibility needs. 12. Build opportunities for citizen stewardship. Many public access sites are remote from regular maintenance staffs. Communities, user organizations, water trail managers, and others should work to develop volunteer citizen stewardship programs to care for and maintain specific access sites. NPS/Jett

Conclusion

The Chesapeake Bay and its major tributaries are the region’s ecological and cultural lifeblood. They are also the primary features that have shaped human habitation here for millennia. American Indians lived be- side them, used their resources, and travelled along them; English settlers did the same. Into the twentieth century, these watercourses were a mainstay of regional transportation. Resorts sprang up at the end of short rail lines leading to the Bay, drawing weekend escapees from muggy cities. All of the region’s major cities are sited on Chesapeake rivers. The iconic images defining the Chesapeake region are all associated with the water: crabs, oysters, rockfish, watermen, skipjacks, lighthouses, water- fowl, sailing, and more.

Today, rivers and the Bay are the most frequent locations of public parks and wildlife management areas. They are the basis for the burgeoning growth of water trails, which provide routes for exploring the water by boat. On a good summer day—or spring or fall day for that matter— waterside parks are full of people.

But year after year, residents of the Chesapeake watershed repeat the re- frain: access to the water is too limited. Where historically many residents of the region worked in association with the water on a daily basis, today too few get the chance to even interact with it. Ironically, the very resource that defines the region has become one that is hard for many people to reach.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Next Steps 47

This plan sets out an agenda for solving this problem. It identifies specific opportunities for expanding the number of places for people to access the water by more than 20 percent by 2025. It also defines a series of planning considerations and next steps that will be instrumental in achieving this goal.

NPS/Ross

48 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Next Steps

Endnotes

1 Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, May 2010, Federal Leadership Com- mittee for the Chesapeake Bay. Available at: http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/category/Reports-Documents.aspx

2 America’s Great Outdoors: A Promise to Future Generations, February 2011 Available at: http://americasgreatoutdoors.gov/report/

3 America’s Great Outdoors Fifty-State Report, US Department of the Interior, November 2011. Available at: http://americasgreatoutdoors.gov/

4 Virginia Outdoors Plan, Commonwealth of Virginia, 2007. Available at: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/recreational_planning/vop.shtml

5 Pennsylvania Outdoors: The Keystone to Healthy Living, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2009. Available at: www.paoutdoorrecplan.com

6 Available at: http://www.outdoorfoundation.org/research.participation.2011.html

7 2011 Virginia Outdoors Demand Survey. Available at: http://dcr.cache.vi.virginia.gov/recreational_planning/documents/vosexecsum11.pdf

8 The Active Outdoor Recreation Economy, Outdoor Industry Foundation, 2006. Available at: http://www.outdoorindustry.org/images/researchfiles/RecEconomypublic.pdf

9 The Economics Associated with Outdoor Recreation, Natural Resources Conservation and Historic Preservation in the United States, for The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation by Southwick Associates, 2011. Available at: http://www.trcp.org/assets/pdf/The_Economic_Value_of_Outdoor_Recreation.pdf

10 Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds, Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010. Available at: http://www.kff.org/entmedia/mh012010pkg.cfm

11 Of the 1,144 existing public access sites documented as of September 2011, 15 sites were inter- preted to have been established between October 2010 and September 2011, the first year of tracking progress toward the goal of adding 300 new sites in the watershed (see appendix A for more detailed explanation). This means the baseline for tracking progress toward the goal is 1,129 sites (1,144 minus 15).

12 To calculate the average distance between existing public access sites, the river banks and tidal shorelines in the study area were divided into segments. The non-tidal portion of each uniquely named fifth-order stream and higher was treated as a separate segment; the tidal portion of each stream was treated as a separate segment. The portions of the Chesapeake Bay shoreline (including small tidal tributaries) between fifth-order streams and higher were also treated as separate segments. Existing public access sites along each segment were then manually counted. Segment lengths were calculated using geographic information system software. For rivers and streams, the

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Endnotes 49

segment length reflects the total length of both riverbanks; because of limited river crossings an access site usually just serves one side of the river. The average distance between existing sites was then calculated for each segment by dividing the length by the number of sites manually associated with it.

13 A Call to Action: Preparing for a Second Century of Stewardship and Engagement, National Park Service, 2011. Available at: http://www.nps.gov/calltoaction/

14 Park Equity Analysis, Maryland Partnership for Children in Nature, Maryland Department of Natural Re- sources, 2011/2012. Available at: drn.maryland.gov/cin/. Strategic provision of public access sites in and adjacent to urban areas will produce multiple public benefits. Moreover, access to streams, rivers, and bays may be the public’s sole interface with water quality. Expanding public access in urban and suburban areas where people and water quality issues are concentrated is important to long-term support for restoring clean water.

15 http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/access-permit/

50 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Endnotes

Appendix A Public Access Milestones, Baseline, and Tracking

Background The Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed issued under Executive Order 13508 sets out a basic rationale for increasing public access: Physical access to nature and the Bay and its rivers is limited. If a core Chesapeake restoration goal is to make the Bay and its tributaries “fishable and swimmable,” then increasing public access to the water is not only an end goal, but also a necessary step to get there. Access to water allows people to enjoy fishing, hunting, swimming, kayaking, hiking, and picnicking, which create opportunities for public education, personal connections with nature, citizen stewardship, and land conservation. The strategy also sets the goal to “increase public access to the Bay and its tributaries by adding 300 new public access sites by 2025.” As the measure of progress toward this goal, the strategy defines public access sites as follows: A [public access] site is a location providing access to the water through a boat ramp, fishing pier, swimming area, or adjacent boardwalk or trail; water means the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. The Public Access Action Team involved in developing this plan further refined the definition of public access sites and established a definition of “new” access sites to create consistency in tracking. As a result, the following conditions count towards the 2025 goal:

• Development of a new public access facility on a new site

• Development of a new type of access at an existing site (For example, if a fishing pier is developed at a site that currently has a boat ramp, the pier would count as a new public access towards the goal.)

Annual Tracking Process for Executive Order Goal Previous tracking efforts in support of the Chesapeake 2000 commitment were coordinated through the Chesapeake Bay Program each year through a simple data-call process. Representatives from Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia (the states included in the process at that time) would annually report the number of public access sites that were developed in their jurisdictions to the Chesapeake Bay Program. The cumulative sum of baseline data and annual updates from state partners were reported as the number of public access sites within the watershed. The Chesapeake Bay Program’s Public Access Action Team, a partnership of all Chesapeake Bay states, federal agencies, and relevant nonprofit partners with National Park Service leadership, will

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix A 51

continue to coordinate public access tracking updates. In the new tracking process, designated state agency staff will use a simple, online system to input the geographic locations of newly developed access sites, based on the established definitions of “new” and “public access.” Public access program staff will also use this online system to fill out a few fields of information (name, water body, access type, ownership, etc.) on each new site. Additional information, such as project cost, can also be collected through the online tool if deemed necessary. The information will be collected consistently in January of each year from 2013 through 2025. This updated tracking process will be an improvement over past efforts, because it will mark the location of new sites directly on an interactive map and provide a significantly wider range of information. As new sites are developed, they will be tracked to meet the Executive Order goal while allowing the public to observe the progress.

Milestones State programs will not be assigned allocations related to the development of public access sites to meet the Executive Order goal. Instead, a collective milestone of 20 additional sites per year will be tracked annually to determine progress towards the overall goal. This milestone is intended to show progress towards the goal, and is not meant to be a target in itself. Based on the opportunistic nature of public access site development, the lack of dependable funding for access projects, and the trends of public access development from the past decade, some years will likely fall below the annual milestone and some years above. Each year the Public Access Action Team will convene to validate the updates made to the online system, discuss issues associated with tracking, and adjust the process if needed.

Public Access Baseline for Tracking Purposes The Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed set a baseline of 761 existing public access sites for tracking progress toward the goal of adding 300 new public access sites by 2025. Be- cause of the extensive new inventory of access sites included in this Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan, this baseline must now be updated. As indicated in the June 2012 draft plan, a total of 1,144 existing public access sites were identified as providing access to the Chesapeake Bay and its streams (fifth-order and higher) as of September 2011. Specifically, there were 6 existing public access sites in Delaware, 578 in Maryland, 26 in New York, 180 in Pennsylvania, 287 in Virginia, 44 in West Virginia, and 23 in Washington, D.C. The dates of site development were not collected during this extensive inventory. As a result, the number of new public access sites developed in the federal fiscal year (FY) 2011—the first year of tracking toward the goal of 300 new sites—is unknown. These sites are included within the list of 1,144 existing public access sites created in September 2011.

52 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix A

However, the number of new sites in FY 2011 must be estimated in order to revise the tracking baseline for the coming years. The Public Access Action Team developed the following strategy for this estimation.

As a part of the Chesapeake 2000 commitment, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., reported the number of new public access sites developed within their jurisdictions each year between the years 2001 to 2010 (table 1). On average, 15 sites were added each year in the portion of the watershed within these jurisdictions.

Table 1: New Access Sites Created in the Chesapeake Watershed

Year MD PA VA DC Total 2001 10 0 5 0 15 2002 8 0 5 0 13

2003 0 0 2 0 2 2004 14 3 2 0 19 2005 15 11 5 0 31 2006 13 7 22 0 42 2007 0 3 6 5 14 2008 4 3 4 0 11 2009 4 0 0 0 4

2010 1 5 0 0 6

This plan uses that average number—15 sites per year—to represent the number of public access sites developed in FY 2011. This number is subtracted from the 1,144 existing sites identified through the development of this plan to determine the new Executive Order baseline, as shown in table 2.

Table 2: New Executive Order Baseline & 2011 Update MD PA VA DC DE NY WV Total EO Baseline 572 177 282 22 6 26 44 1,129

2011 Update 578 180 287 23 6 26 44 1,144

Some existing sites managed by local governments have still likely escaped the heightened documen- tation process that took place during the development of this plan. As these sites are identified in the future, they will be added to the inventory as previously existing sites. This will increase the baseline from which additional new access sites are tracked.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix A 53

(Intentionally blank for two-sided printing.)

54 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix A

Appendix B Potential Access Sites

The following pages contain a list of potential public access sites in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This list was compiled from a variety of sources, including public comment, while creating the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan. However, the identification of potential access sites is not a closed or static process. New opportunities will be continually added to this list. To recommend potential new access sites not included in this list, please use the online mapping tool at http://www.baygateways.net/AddPA. The online instructions will explain how to mark and describe a site. Recommendations will be included in future updates to the data supporting this plan.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B 55

DELAWARE

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails* Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Broad Creek Sussex Bethel Town DE1 Local Yes Yes No Yes Govt. New access at this site could enhance an 2 Yes No No Dock Govt. Agency old town pier that is currently in poor condi- tion. Nanticoke Sussex Red House DE3 State Yes No No No Govt. This site would provide paddling access 2 Yes No No River Landing Govt. Agency along the Nanticoke River Water Trail. Nanticoke Sussex Ruth Harbor DE5 State Yes No No Yes Govt. The site is a critical location along the Nanti- 2 No No No River Tract Govt. Agency coke River Water Trail; however a number of challenges to actually get out to the water need to be resolved. Nanticoke Sussex Seaford River DE4 Local Yes Yes No Yes Govt. In addition to improving the park itself, a 2 Yes No No River Park Govt. Agency viewing and fishing pier and kayak launch are proposed. Nanticoke Sussex Woodland DE2 Private Yes Yes No Yes Govt. Developing this site would help Delaware 2 Yes No No River Ferry Agency meet its goal of providing access every 4 to 5 miles and would be located at a critical midway point between Phillips Landing and Seaford. Has potential for an interpretive center. Wright Creek Sussex Wright Creek DE6 State Yes Yes No Yes Govt. This site is located just off of the Nanticoke 3 Yes No No Govt. Agency River.

* CAJO (Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail); STSP (Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail): POHE (Potomac Heritage Trail)

56 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Anacostia District of Kenilworth DC1 Federal Yes No No Yes Public Suggested access includes boat access, 1 Yes Yes No River Columbia Aquatic Gardens Govt. paddle craft launch, and a pedestrian bridge National across the river to connect Kenilworth Aqua- Arboretum tic Gardens to the US National Arboretum (with a viewing area). Currently owned by the National Park Service. Anacostia District of Henson Center DC3 Federal Yes No No Yes Public Identified during the public comment period 2 Yes Yes Yes River Columbia Govt. and in the Anacostia Watershed Associa- tion's funding application to the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network. It is requested that access not be limited to certain times and days. Currently owned by the National Park Service. Anacostia District of Yards Park DC4 Federal Yes No No No Public 2 Yes Yes Yes River Columbia Govt. Anacostia District of Kenilworth DC2 Federal Yes No No Yes Public Currently owned by the National Park Ser- 2 Yes Yes No River Columbia Aquatic Gardens Govt. vice. Identified during the public comment period and in the Anacostia Watershed Association's funding application to the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network. A viewing tower at Kenilworth and boat access or paddle craft launch is proposed.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B 57

MARYLAND

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Adkins Pond Wicomico Adkins Mill MD51 Unknown Yes Yes No No Public A paddle craft launch could be constructed 3 No No No Pond just behind the dam at this site, which could provide good fishing for crappie, largemouth bass, and sunfish. Anacostia Prince Anacostia MD65 Local Yes No No No Public The Anacostia Watershed Society has sub- 3 Yes Yes No River George's River Park Govt. mitted a Chesapeake Bay Gateways Net- work grant application for the development of this site. Antietam Washington Antietam Drive MD7 Unknown Yes Yes No Yes Public Formal boating, viewing, and fishing access 3 No No No Creek are suggested for this site, which could provide good quality fishing for smallmouth bass, trout, and sunfish. Antietam Washington Burnside MD5 State Yes Yes No Yes Public Formal boating, viewing, and fishing access 3 No No No Creek Bridge Road Govt. are suggested for this site, which would provide good fishing for smallmouth bass and sunfish. Antietam Washington Harpers Ferry MD4 Unknown Yes Yes No No Public Formal boating and fishing access are sug- 3 No No Yes Creek Road gested for this site, which would provide good fishing opportunities for smallmouth bass and sunfish. Antietam Washington Oak Ridge MD6 Unknown Yes Yes No Yes Public Formal boating, viewing, and fishing access 3 No No No Creek Drive are suggested for this site, which would provide good fishing for smallmouth bass, trout, and sunfish. Antietam Washington Shepherdstown MD3 State Yes Yes No Yes Public Formal boating, fishing, and viewing access 3 No No No Creek Pike Govt. are suggested for this site, which is a popular put-in point for rafting. It would provide good fishing for smallmouth bass and sunfish. Back Creek Baltimore Prospect Park MD74 Local Yes Yes No No Public This site is on the Star-Spangled Banner 3 Yes Yes No Govt. National Historic Trail. Fishing may be limited due to water quality and sedimentation.

58 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B

MARYLAND (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Back Creek Baltimore Bauer Farm MD12 Private Yes Yes No Yes Public Multiple suggestions were submitted for this 3 Yes Yes No site, which is an historic homestead on the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail. Bear Creek Baltimore Bear Creek Park MD62 Local Yes Yes No Yes Public Six comments were received improving 3 Yes Yes No Govt. access at this site, which is on the Star- Spangled Banner National Historic Trail and includes scenic views of North Point battlefield. This would be a good site for a paddle craft launch. Fishing quality may be limited by water quality and sedimentation. Bear Creek Baltimore Charlesmont MD34 Local Yes Yes No Yes Public Multiple suggestions were received in sup- 3 Yes Yes No Park Govt. port of fishing and viewing access at this site, which is also on the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail. Bear Creek Baltimore Chesterwood MD75 Local Yes Yes No Yes Public Two suggestions were received for this site, 3 Yes Yes No Park Govt. which currently needs repair to its pier and additional access to the water. This would be a good location for community-based youth fishing, but water quality may limit the quality of fishing opportunities. Bear Creek Baltimore Watersedge MD73 Unknown Yes Yes No Yes Public This site is on the Star-Spangled Banner 3 Yes Yes No Park National Historic Trail. Fishing opportunities may be limited due to water quality and sedimentation. This location is owned by the Baltimore County Department of Recreation and Parks.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B 59

MARYLAND (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Bear Creek Baltimore Stansbury Park MD72 Local Yes Yes No Yes Public Seven suggestions were received for this 3 Yes Yes No and Govt. site, which is on the Star-Spangled Banner Lynch Cove National Historic Trail. There is currently no safe public access to the water in this multi- use park. The park features a pond stocked by the MD Department of Natural Re- sources, as well as biking paths, walking paths, and natural areas. There is a strong community effort to utilize this park, and restoration efforts have included bay-related and urban environmental education. Fishing may be poor due to water quality and sedimentation. Bohemia River Cecil Locust Point MD101 Unknown Yes No No No Govt. The acquisition and development of four (1- 3 Yes Yes No and Town Agency 2 acre) public landings with boat ramps and Point, Cara piers is suggested for this site, which was Cove also identified in the Maryland Access Study for the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, Sept. 2008. Brenton Bay St. Mary's Potomac River MD94 Unknown Yes No No No Govt. It is suggested that land be acquired and 3 Yes Yes Yes Waterfront Park Agency developed into a waterfront park to provide boating access to Brenton Bay and the Patuxent River. This site was also identified in the Maryland Access Study for the Cap- tain John Smith Chesapeake National His- toric Trail, Sept. 2008. Chesapeake Anne Beverly Triton MD81 Local No Yes No No Govt. A fishing pier at this site would provide a 3 Yes Yes No Bay Arundel Beach Park Govt. Agency good location for community-based youth fishing opportunities. This site was also identified in the Maryland Access Study for the Captain John Smith Chesapeake Na- tional Historic Trail, Sept. 2008.

60 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B

MARYLAND (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Chesapeake Anne Chesapeake MD9 Private Yes Yes Yes Yes Public The quality of shoreline fishing at this site is 3 No No No Bay Arundel Bay Foundation very good, especially for white perch and Philip Merrill striped bass. Environmental Center Chesapeake Anne Fort Smallwood MD76 Local Yes No No No Public Three suggestions were received for this 3 Yes Yes No Bay Arundel Park Govt. site. Construction of a boating access facility is planned for this site. Chesapeake Anne Franklin Point MD66 State Yes Yes Yes Yes Public This site has the potential for good shoreline 2 Yes Yes No Bay Arundel Park Govt. fishing and would be an excellent place to launch paddle craft. Chesapeake Anne Harry and MD82 Local Yes No No No Govt. The development of a boat ramp or paddle 3 Yes Yes No Bay Arundel Jeanette Govt. Agency craft launch is suggested for this site, which Weinberg Park was also identified as an access opportunity in the Maryland Access Study for the Cap- tain John Smith Chesapeake National His- toric Trail, Sept. 2008. Chesapeake Anne Mayo MD77 Local Yes Yes Yes No Public Two suggestions were received for this site, 3 Yes Yes No Bay Arundel Beach Park Govt. especially noting need for a boating and fishing pier. This site is also a good location for fair to good quality shoreline fishing for white perch, striped bass, spot, and croaker. Chesapeake Anne Thomas Point MD27 Unknown Yes No No No Public Boating access, especially for aquatic wind 3 Yes Yes No Bay Arundel Park sports and paddle craft, is suggested for this site. Chesapeake Baltimore Fort Howard MD83 Local No No No Yes Govt. The development of an interpretive trail and 3 Yes Yes No Bay Park Govt. Agency observation decks are suggested for this site, which was also identified as an access opportunity in the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail Plan.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B 61

MARYLAND (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Chesapeake Baltimore Fort Howard MD85 Local Yes No No No Govt. The addition of a paddler's wayside to the 3 Yes Yes No Bay Park Govt. Agency existing fishing pier on the southern tip of the park would provide boating access to Bay and the Patapsco River. Chesapeake Baltimore North Point MD69 State Yes Yes Yes Yes Public This site would be a good location for a boat 3 Yes Yes No Bay State Park Govt. ramp if an adequate water depth exists. Chesapeake Calvert Cove Point MD64 Unknown Yes Yes Yes Yes Public Informal access to the Chesapeake Bay 3 Yes Yes No Bay Lighthouse is provided at this site by the Calvert Marine History Museum. This site has seasonal shoreline/surf fishing opportunities for striped bass and bluefish. Chesapeake Dorchester Blackwater MD78 Federal No No No Yes Govt. The construction of two photo blinds with 3 No No No Bay National Wild- Govt. Agency associated boardwalks along the wildlife life Refuge drive on the Blackwater River are suggested to provide viewing access at this site, which was also identified for access opportunities in the 202e Report Research, Sept 2009. Chesapeake Dorchester Blackwater MD79 Federal No No No Yes Govt. The construction of an environmental educa- 3 No No No Bay National Govt. Agency tion/wildlife viewing boardwalk and observa- Wildlife Refuge tion platform is suggested for this site. Chesapeake Dorchester Punch Island MD30 Local No Yes No Yes Public This site has the potential for quality fishing 3 Yes Yes No Bay Road Govt. for striped bass, bluefish, spotted sea trout, spot, and croaker from late spring through autumn. Chesapeake Harford Aberdeen MD41 Federal Yes No No No Public Public boating access is suggested for the 3 Yes Yes No Bay Proving Ground Govt. Aberdeen Proving Ground Military Reserva- Military tion marina. Reservation Chesapeake Harford Pooles Island MD45 Federal No No No Yes Public This site is in the Aberdeen Proving Ground 3 Yes Yes No Bay Govt. Military Reservation.

62 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B

MARYLAND (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Chesapeake Kent Tockwogh Tower MD37 Federal No No No Yes Public This unused Aberdeen Proving Ground 3 Yes Yes No Bay Govt. observation tower provides excellent views of the upper Bay. The site is surrounded by land owned by YMCA Camp Tockwogh. Chesapeake Kent Fairlee Tower MD44 Federal Yes No No Yes Public This is the southernmost Aberdeen observa- 3 Yes Yes No Bay Govt. tion tower. Chesapeake Kent Rocky Point MD36 Federal No No Yes Yes Public This infrequently used Aberdeen Proving 3 Yes Yes No Bay Tower Govt. Ground observation tower has excellent views across the upper Bay. Chesapeake Kent Tolchester MD43 Local Yes Yes No Yes Public A paddle craft ramp and/or a public board- 3 Yes Yes No Bay Govt. walk are suggested. This site provides good seasonal fishing from shore June through September for striped bass. Chesapeake Kent Howell Point MD38 Federal No No No Yes Public This unused Aberdeen Proving Ground 3 Yes Yes No Bay, Tower Govt. observation tower provides excellent views Sassafras River of the upper Bay. The site is surrounded by land owned by YMCA Camp Tockwogh. Chester River Queen Conquest Beach MD8 Local Yes Yes Yes Yes Public Conditions for quality shoreline fishing at this 3 No No No Anne's Govt. site may be limited. Chester River/ Queen Langenfelder MD42 State Yes Yes No Yes Public Once a steamboat landing, this site has 2 Yes Yes No Chesapeake Anne's Marina/ Govt. outstanding shoreline fishing opportunities Bay Love Point and creation of boating access would pro- State Park vide additional access to high quality fishing near the mouth of the Chester River. Mary- land DNR is developing a management plan that includes boating and fishing access. Chester River Queen Old Bridge MD57 State Yes No No Yes Public The abandoned bridge ramp at this site 3 No No No Anne's Approach Govt. could be converted into a car-top launch. Double Pipe Carroll Detour MD2 Unknown Yes Yes Yes Yes Public This site would provide good quality fishing 3 No No No Creek for sunfish and catfish. Double Pipe Carroll Double Pipe MD56 Local Yes Yes No No Public 3 No No No Creek Creek Park Govt.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B 63

MARYLAND (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Elk River Cecil Frenchtown MD35 Private No No No No Public This is an historic landing site of the British 3 Yes Yes No in the Revolutionary War. Elk River Cecil Sassafras River MD100 Unknown Yes No No No Govt. A launch site for paddle craft is suggested 3 Yes Yes No Water Trail Agency for this site, which was also identified as an access opportunity in the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail Plan. Magothy Anne Magothy River MD15 Unknown Yes No No No Public 3 No No No River Arundel Access Manokin Somerset Manokin River MD11 Local Yes Yes Yes Yes Public A boat ramp is suggested at this site. An 3 No No No River Govt. existing pier could provide seasonal, high quality fishing opportunities, but the closest boat ramp is located at Champ Wharf on St. Peters Creek. Miles River Talbot Miles Point MD31 Local No Yes No Yes Public Recently saved from development, this is a 3 No No No Govt. beautiful green space just outside of St. Michaels. This site may offer good shoreline fishing for white perch, striped bass, bluefish, spot, and croaker. Mill Creek Anne Mill Creek MD25 Federal Yes No No No Public 3 Yes Yes No Arundel Govt. Mill Creek Kent Toal Park MD47 Local Yes Yes Yes Yes Public In particular, a sheltered small boat trail 3 Yes Yes No Govt. head is suggested for this site, which is noted as a great spot for bass fishing and has the potential for fair-to-good shoreline fishing for white perch, yellow perch, sunfish, largemouth bass, crappie, and catfish.

64 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B

MARYLAND (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Monocacy Frederick Bridgeport MD32 State Yes Yes No Yes Public The MD Rt. 140 bridge is slated for re- 2 No No No River Access Project Govt. placement in 2012. The Monocacy Scenic MD Rt. 140 River Citizens Advisory Board has recom- Bridge mended public access here to the MD State Highway Administration. The proposed boating access will be developed in partnership with Frederick and Carroll County Park and Recreation Departments. Monocacy Frederick Bruceville MD58 Unknown Yes Yes No Yes Public Boating access at this site would provide a 3 No No No River good midway point in the Bridgeport- Mumma Ford Road stretch of river for paddlers looking for a shorter trip. This site also has the potential to provide good fishing for smallmouth bass, sunfish, and catfish. Monocacy Frederick Bullfrog Road MD59 Unknown Yes Yes No Yes Public This site would provide a good alternative to 3 No No No River Bridge a site at the MD Rt. 140 bridge, where the road is considered too busy. This site has the potential for good quality fishing for smallmouth bass, sunfish, and catfish. Monocacy Frederick Shoemaker MD60 Unknown Yes Yes No Yes Public This site is located near Shoemaker Road 3 No No No River Road where it crosses over the Monacacy River to become Baptist Road. This site would provide a good alternative to a site at the MD Rt. 140 bridge, where the road is considered too busy. This site has the potential for good quality fishing for smallmouth bass, sunfish, and catfish. Morgnec Kent Blue Bridge MD39 State Yes Yes No No Public A paddle craft launch for boats and a fishing 3 No No No Creek Govt. dock are suggested for this site. Shoreline fishing opportunities are good in the spring for white perch and yellow perch. Boaters have access to catfish, perch, and carp. Morris Mill Wicomico Morris Mill MD54 Local No Yes No Yes Public 3 No No No Pond Pond Govt.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B 65

MARYLAND (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Nanticoke Dorchester Vienna MD106 Local Yes No No No Govt. A 2011 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network 2 No No No River Govt. Agency application for financial assistance suggested the development of a new access for paddle craft at the Old Nanticoke Inn. Nanticoke Wicomico Nanticoke MD103 State No Yes No Yes Public Suggestions for recreational facilities at this 3 Yes No No River WMA Govt. site would need to align with management philosophy and primitive landscape. Nassawango Worcester Nassawango MD50 Private Yes Yes No No Public Currently, paddle craft access is available 3 No No No Creek Creek just off the road, but formal access has not been developed. This site also has possible fishing opportunities for crappie, sunfish, and in spring, yellow perch, white perch, and hickory shad. North Point Baltimore Elston Property MD33 Local Yes No No No Public This eleven-acre waterfront site is adjacent 3 Yes Yes No Creek Govt. to North Point State Park. No boat ramp exists on the North Point peninsula at this time. North Point Baltimore North Point MD71 State No No No Yes Public This site provides a view of the headwaters 3 Yes Yes No Creek State Park Govt. of North Point Creek. Haul Road

North Point Baltimore North Point MD70 Local Yes Yes No Yes Public This is a county-owned, waterfront property. 3 Yes Yes No Creek State Park Govt. Oak Road Old Road Baltimore Fort Howard MD68 Unknown Yes No Yes Yes Public This site is on the Star-Spangled Banner 2 Yes Yes No Bay Veterans Park National Historic Trail. It offers poor fishing opportunities due to water quality and sedimentation. Parker Pond Wicomico Parker Pond MD52 Local Yes Yes No No Public This site could potentially provide good 3 No No No Govt. fishing opportunities for largemouth bass, crappie, and sunfish, dependent upon water quality.

66 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B

MARYLAND (continued)

Patapsco Baltimore Veterans MD86 Federal Yes No No No Govt. A paddle craft launch is suggested at this 3 Yes Yes No River Administration Govt. Agency site to provide additional boating access Property near Fort Howard Park. Patapsco River/ Baltimore Webster Street MD63 Unknown Yes Yes No Yes Public This would be a great location for communi- 3 Yes Yes No Inner Harbor Waterfront ty-based youth fishing events, but quality of fishing fair to poor due to poor water quality. Patapsco River Carroll Finksburg/ MD61 Unknown Yes Yes No Yes Public 3 No No No West Branch Emory Rd

Patuxent Anne Patuxent MD89 Unknown No No No Yes Govt. Three new water observation and interpre- 3 Yes Yes No River Arundel Water Trail Agency tation areas are suggested for this site on the Middle Patuxent. This site was also identified as an access opportunity in the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail Plan. Patuxent Anne Sands Road MD29 Local Yes Yes No Yes Public This stretch of the Patuxent River offers 3 Yes Yes No River Arundel Govt. excellent opportunities for catch-and-release fishing for hickory and American shad in the spring. Summer fishing for catfish and carp can also be good. Patuxent Calvert Navy Welfare MD102 Unknown Yes No No No Public This site is upriver from Point Patience. 3 Yes Yes No River and Rec Beach Patuxent Calvert Solomons MD105 Local Yes No No No Govt. The Star-Spangled Banner National Historic 2 No Yes No River Island Govt. Agency Trail Water Trail Plan suggests developing a paddler's launch at the Solomons Boat Ramp and Fishing Pier adjacent to Route 4 bridge.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B 67

MARYLAND (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Patuxent Charles Benedict MD1 Local Yes Yes No Yes Public This site is included in the draft Benedict 3 Yes Yes No River Gateway Govt. Waterfront Village Revitalization Plan. Cur- rent recommendations are to provide parking, interpretation, and water access. This site may also be suitable for a boat launch. Patuxent Prince Patuxent MD90 Unknown Yes No No No Govt. The development of a paddler's wayside is 3 Yes Yes No River George's Water Trail Agency suggested for this site, which was also identified as an access opportunity in the Star- Spangled Banner National Historic Trail Plan. Patuxent St. Mary's Sotterley MD91 Private Yes No No No Govt. A paddler's wayside, dock, or tie-down is 3 Yes Yes No River Plantation Agency suggested for this site, which was also identified as an access opportunity in the Star- Spangled Banner National Historic Trail Plan. Potomac Charles Morgantown MD19 Unknown Yes Yes No Yes Public A fishing pier and boat launch are suggested 3 Yes Yes No River for this site, which would provide excellent fishing opportunities for boaters/kayakers. Public parking is needed. Potomac Prince Oxon Cove MD92 Federal Yes No No No Govt. A floating dock on the south side of the cove 2 Yes Yes Yes River George's Park Govt. Agency is suggested for this site, which is on the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail. Potomac Prince Oxon Cove MD93 Federal No No No Yes Govt. An observation deck on the north side of the 2 Yes Yes Yes River George's Park Govt. Agency cove is suggested for this site, which is on the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail. Potomac Prince Piscataway MD26 Federal No Yes No Yes Public This site offers high quality fishing for tidal 3 Yes Yes Yes River George's Park Govt. largemouth bass, striped bass, and catfish.

68 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B

MARYLAND (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Potomac St. Mary's St George's MD96 Unknown Yes No No No Govt. The development of a paddle craft launch is 3 Yes Yes No River Creek Agency suggested at this site, which was also identified as an access opportunity in the Mary- land Access Study for the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, Sept. 2008. Potomac St. Mary's St. Jerome's MD95 Unknown Yes No No No Govt. The development of a paddle craft launch is 3 Yes Yes No River Creek Agency suggested at this site, which was also identified as an access opportunity in the Mary- land Access Study for the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, Sept. 2008. Sassafras Cecil Mt. Harmon MD46 Private Yes Yes Yes Yes Public Two suggestions were received for this site, 3 Yes Yes No River Plantation which is the location of a private museum. A trail network for small vessels is suggested around this area of the river. Sassafras Cecil Mount Harmon MD97 Private Yes No No Yes Govt. A new dock and an observation deck to view 3 Yes Yes No River Plantation Agency wildlife and water features are suggested for this site. Sassafras Cecil Sassafras MD48 Unknown Yes No No Yes Public 3 No No No River River-301 Bridge Sassafras Kent Elkton Landing MD98 Unknown Yes No No No Govt. A paddle craft launch is suggested for this 3 Yes Yes No River Agency site, which was also identified as an access opportunity in the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail Plan. Sassafras Kent Sassafras River MD99 Unknown Yes No No Yes Govt. Suggestions for this site include a gateway 3 Yes Yes No River Water Trail Agency area with enhanced shoreline green space, a paddler's launch, docking and short-term storage, parking, picnic area, a gazebo, and potentially public restrooms.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B 69

MARYLAND (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Sassafras Kent Shallcross MD40 Local Yes Yes No Yes Public In particular, a ramp for car-top boat use and 3 Yes Yes No River Wharf Govt. a short public boardwalk are suggested for this site. This site may offer good for shoreline fishing for largemouth bass, white perch, yellow perch, and catfish. Seneca Montgomery Seneca Creek MD17 State No Yes No Yes Public Fishing opportunities are seasonal (spring) 3 No No No Creek Govt. for trout. Shallow Baltimore Fort Howard MD13 Local Yes Yes No Yes Public Fishing opportunities at this site may be 3 Yes Yes No Creek Park Govt. limited due to shallow water. Shallow Baltimore Fort Howard MD14 Local Yes Yes No Yes Public Fishing opportunities at this site may be 3 Yes Yes No Creek Park - North Govt. limited due to shallow water. Point Road Shallow Baltimore Fort Howard MD84 Local Yes No No No Govt. A paddle craft launch on Shallow Creek and 3 Yes Yes No Creek Park - Todd Govt. Agency a paddler's wayside at the Todd House are House suggested to provide access to the Pataps- co River. This site was also identified as an access opportunity in the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail Plan. Shallow Baltimore Todds MD67 State Yes No No Yes Public This is a historic homestead site on the Star- 2 Yes Yes No Creek Inheritance Govt. Spangled Banner National Historic Trail, North Point Heritage Trail, and Scenic By- way. South Anne Old South River MD24 Unknown Yes Yes No No Public This may be a good location for launching 3 No No No River Arundel Road light crafts. South Anne South River MD23 Unknown Yes No No No Public This may be a good location for launching 3 No No No River Arundel Road light crafts. South River & Anne Londontowne MD22 Unknown Yes Yes No Yes Public This site may offer high-quality shoreline 3 No No No Almshouse Arundel fishing for white perch, striped bass, and Creek bluefish. St. Leonard Calvert Jefferson MD104 Local No No No Yes Govt. The Star-Spangled Banner National Historic 2 No Yes No Creek Patterson Park Govt. Agency Trail Water Trail Plan suggests a deck/boardwalk to provide water views.

70 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B

MARYLAND (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Seneca Creek Montgomery Seneca Creek MD18 State No No No Yes Public 3 No No No Tributary State Park Govt. Still Pond Kent Old Coast MD21 Unknown Yes No Yes No Public Multiple suggestions for formal boating and 3 Yes Yes No Guard Station swimming access were received for this site. Susquehanna Cecil Ice House Park MD16 Local Yes Yes No Yes Public Ice House Park is a 5-3/4 acre parcel of land 3 Yes Yes No River Govt. adjacent to Garrett Island that will be developed by the town as a waterfront park. This site provides excellent fishing for yellow perch, white perch, striped bass, hickory, American shad, black bass, and catfish. A paddle craft launch, fishing, and viewing access are suggested. Susquehanna Cecil Octoraro Creek MD20 Local Yes Yes No Yes Public This site is near the MD Rt. 222 Bridge. 3 Yes No No River Govt. Swan Creek Harford Swan Creek/ MD10 Federal Yes Yes No Yes Public Shoreline fishing opportunities are modest, 3 Yes Yes No Edgewood Govt. but a boat ramp or pier would provide access to high quality fishing on the Sus- quehanna Flats. Tony Tank Wicomico Pine Bluff MD53 Local Yes Yes No No Public 3 No No No Pond Govt. Wicomico Wicomico Pemberton MD49 Local Yes Yes No Yes Public This Chesapeake Bay Gateways site has a 3 No No No River Park Govt. natural potential water trail around Bell Isl- and and along the Wicomico River, but would require a paddle craft launch. This location also has the potential for seasonal shoreline fishing for yellow and white perch, sunfish, and channel catfish. Wicomico Wicomico Upper Ferry MD55 Local Yes Yes No Yes Public 3 No No No River Terminal Govt.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B 71

NEW YORK

Relationship to Potential Activities Current Existing Trails Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Owner- Source Special Notes Category ship Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Oaks Creek Otsego Oaks Creek NY1 State Yes No No No Govt. This suggestion, submitted through a 2011 2 No No No Blueway Trail Govt. Agency Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network financial assistance application, will address a gap in access at the headwaters of the Sus- quehanna River watershed.

72 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B

PENNSYLVANIA

Relationship to Potential Activities Current Existing Trails Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Owner- Source Special Notes Category ship Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Canadochly York Canadochly PA18 Unknown Yes No No No Public This site may provide access to the Susque- 3 No No No Creek Creek hanna River. This stretch of the Susquehan- na has private marinas until Lock #2 Recreation Area. Chemung River Bradford South Waverly PA41 State Yes No No No Govt. This site is between Tozers Landing and the 2 No No No Govt. Agency PA/NY Border. Conestoga Lancaster Conestoga PA65 Private No Yes No No Govt. 3 No No No River River Agency Driftwood Cameron Driftwood PA62 Local Yes Yes No No Govt. 3 No No No Branch Branch Govt. Agency Little Juniata Blair Tyrone At Rt. PA56 State Yes No No No Govt. A paddle craft launch is suggested for this 2 No No No River 453 Govt. Agency site. There is currently no access here, but a PA Department of Transportation Park-and- Ride provides ample parking near the river. Little Juniata Huntingdon Downstream of PA76 Unknown Yes Yes No No Govt. A paddle craft launch is suggested for this 2 No No No River Rt. 305 Bridge Agency site near Barree. Little Juniata Huntingdon Spruce Creek PA55 Private Yes No No No Govt. This site currently does not offer public 3 No No No River Church Agency access, but would be well suited for a paddle craft launch. Little Juniata Huntingdon Pemberton PA78 Unknown Yes Yes No No Govt. Site needs to be reviewed for concrete ramp 3 No No No River Agency and other improvements. Little Juniata Huntingdon Rothrock State PA77 State No Yes No No Govt. The PA Fish and Boat Commission is plan- 1 No No No River Forest near Govt. Agency ning installation of a paddle craft launch at Barree Greene Hills Campground outside of Barree. Additional improvements can be made for fishing access at this location. Juniata Huntingdon Mt. Union PA72 Local Yes Yes No No Govt. Fishing and boating access were requested 2 No No No Main Stem Govt. Agency through a 2011 application to the Chesa- peake Bay Gateways Network financial assistance program.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B 73

PENNSYLVANIA (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Current Existing Trails Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Owner- Source Special Notes Category ship Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Juniata Mifflin McVeytown PA70 Unknown Yes Yes No No Govt. Unpowered boating and fishing access are 3 No No No Main Stem Agency suggested for this site. Juniata Mifflin Rt. 103 and PA71 Private Yes Yes No No Govt. Unpowered boating and fishing access are 3 No No No Main Stem Wharton Rd. Agency suggested for this site. Juniata Perry Millerstown PA69 Local Yes Yes No No Govt. 3 No No No Main Stem Govt. Agency Juniata River Dauphin Reese's Point PA61 Private Yes No No No Govt. Formal boating access is suggested for this 3 No No No Agency site. Juniata River Huntingdon Juniata River PA52 Private Yes No No No Govt. Access has previously been proposed at this 3 No No No Agency location. Juniata River Perry Howe Town- PA60 Local Yes No No No Govt. A 2011 application to the Chesapeake Bay 1 No No No ship Park Govt. Agency Gateways Network financial assistance program suggests the development of a single-lane concrete plank launch to provide access to the Juniata River Water Trail. The facility would provide the only public access on the Juniata River between Greenwood Access and Amity Hall Access (approximately 14 miles). Juniata Blair Ganister PA75 Private Yes Yes No No Govt. Unpowered boating and fishing access is 3 No No No Frankstown Agency suggested for this site. Branch Juniata Huntingdon Borough of PA74 Private Yes Yes No No Govt. The PA Fish and Boat Commission is cur- 1 No No No Frankstown Alexandria Agency rently working to develop access at this site. Branch Juniata River Huntingdon Alfarata Access PA54 Private Yes No No No Govt. Boating access is suggested for this site, 3 No No No Frankstown Agency which currently does not offer any public Branch access but would be well suited for a paddle craft launch. Juniata River Huntingdon Mt. Etna PA57 Unknown Yes No No No Govt. Boating access is suggested for this site, 3 No No No Frankstown Access Agency which currently does not offer any public Branch access but would be well suited for a paddle craft launch.

74 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B

PENNSYLVANIA (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Current Existing Trails Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Owner- Source Special Notes Category ship Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Juniata Perry Neff Bridge PA73 Unknown No Yes No No Govt. 3 No No No Frankstown Agency Branch Juniata River Bedford Breezewood PA53 State Yes No No No Govt. This is currently an undeveloped, wooded 2 No No No Raystown Access Govt. Agency site. Branch Juniata Bedford Cooper Site PA80 Unknown Yes Yes No No Govt. Paddle craft and fishing access is suggested 3 No No No Raystown Agency for this site. Branch Juniata Bedford Cypher Bridge PA81 Unknown Yes Yes No No Govt. Paddle craft and fishing access is suggested 3 No No No Raystown Agency for this site. Branch Juniatia Bedford Everett PA83 Unknown Yes Yes No No Govt. Paddle craft and fishing access is suggested 3 No No No Raystown Agency for this site. Branch Juniata Bedford Herline Bridge PA86 Unknown Yes Yes No No Govt. Paddle craft and fishing access is suggested 3 No No No Raystown Agency for this site. Branch Juniatia Bedford Juniata Woolen PA84 Private Yes Yes No No Govt. Paddle craft and fishing access is suggested 3 No No No Raystown Mill Agency for this site. Branch Juniata Bedford Old Bedford PA85 Private Yes Yes No No Govt. Paddle craft and fishing access is suggested 3 No No No Raystown Village Agency for this site. Branch Juniata Bedford Riddlesburg PA79 Unknown Yes Yes No No Govt. Paddle craft and fishing access is suggested 3 No No No Raystown Agency for this site. Branch Juniatia Bedford Ritchey Bridge PA82 Unknown Yes Yes No No Govt. Paddle craft and fishing access is suggested 3 No No No Raystown Agency for this site. Branch Mahantango Dauphin Confluence of PA19 Private Yes No No No Public 2 No No No Creek Mahantango Creek and Susquehanna River

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B 75

PENNSYLVANIA (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Current Existing Trails Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Owner- Source Special Notes Category ship Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Pine Creek Potter Mill Street PA50 Local Yes Yes No No Govt. 3 No No No Bridge Govt. Agency Pine Creek Tioga Rexford Access PA49 Local Yes No No No Govt. Formal boating access is suggested at this 3 No No No Govt. Agency site. Sinnema- Clinton Sinnemahoning PA64 Private Yes Yes No No Govt. 3 No No No honing Creek Agency Creek Sinnema- Cameron Main Branch of PA63 Private Yes Yes No No Govt. 3 No No No honing Creek Sinnemahoning Agency Main Branch Creek Stony Creek Dauphin Stony Creek PA59 Private Yes No No No Govt. Formal boating access is suggested at this 3 No No No Agency site at the mouth of Stony Creek Susquehanna Bradford Asylum PA35 Local Yes No No No Govt. Formal boating access is suggested at this 3 No No No River Township Govt. Agency site. In particular, formalizing gravel access is suggested. Susquehanna Bradford Riverfront PA16 Local Yes Yes No No Public A boat launch is suggested at this site. 3 No No No River Access Govt. Susquehanna Bradford Terrytown Access PA34 State Yes No No No Govt. Formal boating access is suggested at this 3 No No No River River Mile 254 Govt. Agency site. Susquehanna Bradford Wyalusing PA33 Local Yes No No No Govt. Formal boating access is suggested at this 3 No No No River Govt. Agency site. In particular, formalizing the currently available carry-in access is suggested. Susquehanna Dauphin Dauphin PA20 Local Yes Yes No No Public A paddle craft launch is suggested for this 2 No No No River Borough Govt. site, but a steep slope to the river will make the construction of a launch a challenge. If a nearby site could be found, this location would probably be deleted, though it could still be used for fishing and viewing. Susquehanna Dauphin Duncannon PA24 Local Yes No No No Public Discussions about developing this site have 2 No No No River Borough Govt. taken place between the PA Fish and Boat Commission and the borough, but funding is currently unavailable.

76 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B

PENNSYLVANIA (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Current Existing Trails Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Owner- Source Special Notes Category ship Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Susquehanna Dauphin Fort Halifax PA22 Local Yes No No No Public A new town park is currently being devel- 3 No No No River Govt. oped at this site. Susquehanna Dauphin Fort Halifax PA88 Local Yes No No Yes Public Informal paddle craft launches are suggested 2 No No No River Park Govt. at this site. A heritage park master plan has been completed, and the park has an active "Friends of Fort Halifax" support group. Susquehanna Dauphin Fort Hunter PA87 Local Yes No No No Govt. A 2011 application to the Chesapeake Bay 2 No No No River Park Govt. Agency Gateways Network financial assistance program suggests the development of a new paddle craft launch facility to access the Middle Susquehanna Water Trail. The facility will provide the only public paddle craft access on the east shore of the Susquehan- na between the towns of Middletown and Duncannon (approximately 25 miles). Susquehanna Lancaster Blue Rock - PA36 Local Yes No No No Govt. Formal boating access is suggested at this 3 No No No River Manor Govt. Agency site. Township Susquehanna Lancaster Conoy PA67 Local No Yes No No Govt. 2 No No No River Township Park Govt. Agency Susquehanna Lancaster Lancaster Co. PA68 Local No Yes No No Govt. 3 No No No River Govt. Agency Susquehanna Lancaster Marietta Park PA66 Local No Yes No No Govt. State planning for the potential development 2 No No No River Govt. Agency of this site is currently underway. Susquehanna Luzerne Canal Park PA31 Local Yes No No No Govt. Formal boating access is suggested at this 3 No No No River Govt. Agency site. Susquehanna Luzerne Nanticoke PA30 Private Yes No No No Govt. Formal boating access is suggested at this 3 No No No River Agency site. Susquehanna Luzerne Pittston PA32 Unknown Yes No No No Govt. Formal boating access is suggested at this 3 No No No River Agency site. Susquehanna Luzerne South Canal PA29 Local Yes No No No Govt. This site is currently being developed by the 1 No No No River Street Park Govt. Agency Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B 77

PENNSYLVANIA (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Current Existing Trails Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Owner- Source Special Notes Category ship Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Susquehanna Northumber- Herndon PA23 Local Yes No No No Public This site is on the Herndon town waterfront. 2 No No No River land Govt. Currently, there is no east shore boating access within 10 miles north of this location or within 12 miles to the south. Susquehanna Perry Duncannon PA25 Private Yes No No No Public 3 No No No River Susquehanna Union Confluence of PA21 Local Yes No No No Public A 2011 application to the Chesapeake Bay 3 No No No River North and West Govt. Gateways Network financial assistance Branches of program requests the installation of 15 port- Susquehanna able docks to accommodate 30 to 40 moto- River rized boats or as many as 60 paddle craft. Susquehanna York Klines Run PA37 Private Yes No No No Govt. Formal boating access is suggested at this 3 No No No River Park Agency site. Susquehanna Bradford Susquehanna PA44 Local Yes Yes No No Govt. Formal boating access is suggested at this 3 No No No North Branch North Branch Govt. Agency site. Susquehanna Bradford Terrytown PA45 State Govt. Yes Yes No No Govt. 2 No No No North Branch Access Agency Susquehanna Luzerne Susquehanna - PA27 Unknown Yes Yes No Yes Public 3 No No No North Branch North Branch Susquehanna Luzerne West Pittston PA26 Unknown Yes Yes No Yes Public The West Pittson area of the Susquehanna’s 1 No No No North Branch North Branch currently lacks public access for approximately 14 miles. A grant application was submitted to the PA Fish and Boat Commission to support the development of a boat ramp at this site in the past. Susquehanna Wyoming Laceyville PA42 Local Yes No No No Govt. Development of this site was funded as a 1 No No No North Branch Govt. Agency part of a 2010 Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network project to provide boat access, but was not completed due to heavy flooding. Susquehanna Wyoming Mehoopany PA43 Private Yes Yes No No Govt. 2 No No No North Branch Twp. at Proctor Agency & Gamble Plant

78 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B

PENNSYLVANIA (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Current Existing Trails Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Owner- Source Special Notes Category ship Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Susquehanna Clearfield Elliots Landing PA8 Private Yes Yes No No Public 3 No No No West Branch Susquehanna Clearfield Goldenrod PA9 Private Yes Yes Yes No Public This site would provide good intermediate 3 No No No West Branch access for low flow seasons, and would also be a good site for large group overnights. Susquehanna Clearfield Irvin Park, PA5 Private Yes Yes No Yes Public 3 No No No West Branch Curwensville Susquehanna Clearfield Lumber City PA2 Unknown Yes Yes No No Public The suggested site would be downstream of 3 No No No West Branch the bridge to avoid erosion. Susquehanna Clearfield Mahaffey PA3 Local Yes Yes Yes Yes Public Development of this publically owned site 2 No No No West Branch Govt. would open a new stretch of the West Branch for bass fishing, provide a good takeout location for early season paddlers, and provide a good put-in location for summer floats. A grant application was submitted to the PA Fish and Boat Commission for the development of this site. Susquehanna Clearfield McGees Mills PA46 Private Yes No No No Govt. Formal boating access is suggested at this 3 No No No West Branch Agency site. Susquehanna Clearfield Millstone Run PA47 Private Yes No No No Govt. Formal boating access is suggested at this 3 No No No West Branch Agency site. Susquehanna Clearfield Porters Bridge/ PA6 Private Yes Yes Yes No Public The development of this site, adjacent to an 3 No No No West Branch Hogback existing bridge, would provide intermediate access that is needed during low flow events and bass season. Susquehanna Clearfield Rolling Stone PA10 Private Yes No No No Public 3 No No No West Branch access Susquehanna Clearfield Susquehanna PA4 Unknown Yes Yes Yes No Public There is bank erosion at this site that could 3 No No No West Branch West Branch be addressed with stream enhancement structures that could double as a paddle craft launch. Susquehanna Clearfield Susquehanna PA48 Private Yes No No No Govt. Formal boating access is suggested at this 3 No No No West Branch West Branch Agency site.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B 79

PENNSYLVANIA (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Current Existing Trails Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Owner- Source Special Notes Category ship Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Susquehanna Clearfield VFW site PA7 Unknown Yes Yes Yes No Public The existing access below the bridge near 3 No No No West Branch this location has constant issues with sedi- ment loading below the bridge structure. This site has natural access to river. Parking would need to be provided via a shared-use agreement or easement with VFW. Susquehanna Clinton Bakers Run PA11 State Yes Yes No Yes Public Some improvements have already been 1 No No No West Branch Govt. made at this site, but a paddle craft launch, camping area, and restroom facilities are needed for the gap between Hyner and Lock Haven. Susquehanna Clinton Memorial Park PA12 Local Yes Yes No No Public In particular, a paddle craft launch at Me- 2 No No No West Branch Govt. morial Park would provide fishing access and an excellent rest spot for paddlers. Susquehanna Clinton Wayne PA13 Local Yes Yes No Yes Public 3 No No No West Branch Township Govt.

Susquehanna Lycoming Heritage Park PA1 Local Yes Yes No Yes Public Boating (paddle craft), viewing, and fishing 2 No No No West Branch Govt. access are suggested for this site. Muncy Historical Society plans to develop the site as an 11-acre heritage park. Currently, these plans lack funding, and a grant application has been submitted to the PA Fish and Boat Commission. Susquehanna Lycoming Jersey Shore PA17 Private Yes Yes No Yes Public To support development of this site, applica- 1 No No No West Branch Borough RM 55 tions were submitted in 2011 for Chesa- peake Bay Gateway Network funding and a PA Fish and Boat Commission access grant. The Jersey Shore Borough has matching funds available for access development.

80 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B

PENNSYLVANIA (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Current Existing Trails Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Owner- Source Special Notes Category ship Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Susquehanna Northumber- Watsontown PA14 Local Yes Yes No Yes Public Boating, fishing, and viewing access are 3 No No No West Branch land Govt. suggested for this site. A soft launch would provide access to downtown, parking, grocery, hardware, eating, and drinking establishments. Other public sites exist near this location, but do not provide access to the town. Susquehanna Union Lewisburg PA15 Local Yes Yes No Yes Public A paddle craft launch at this location would 3 No No No West Branch Govt. provide access to downtown, a local park, and amenities. Susquehanna Union Rt. 15 Bypass PA51 State Yes No No No Govt. Formal boating access is suggested at this 3 No No No West Branch Bridge Govt. Agency site. Swatara Lebanon Black Ridge PA39 Private Yes No No No Govt. 2 No No No Creek Road Agency Swatara Lebanon Pine Road at PA38 Private Yes No No No Govt. 2 No No No Creek Valley Glen Agency Swatara Lebanon River Mile 27 PA40 Private Yes No No No Govt. Acquisition of this site has been funded by 1 No No No Creek Agency the state of Pennsylvania. Boat access has been proposed. Tunkhannock Wyoming Lazy Brook PA28 Local Yes Yes No No Public 3 No No No Creek Park Govt.

Wiconisco Dauphin Elizabethville PA58 Private Yes Yes No No Govt. This site is located where SR225 crosses 3 No No No Creek Agency the Wiconisco Creek.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B 81

VIRGINIA

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Appomattox Amelia River Road VA79 Unknown Yes No No No Govt. Amelia County is planning to develop this 2 No No No River Crossing Agency site, which is recommended for public access in the 2007 Virginia Outdoors Plan. Appomattox Amelia Route 360 VA78 Unknown Yes No No No Govt. Amelia County is planning to develop this 2 No No No River Crossing Agency site, which is recommended for public access in the 2007 Virginia Outdoors Plan. Appomattox Buckingham Route 612 VA39 Unknown Yes No No No Public Boating access at this site would provide 3 No No No River Bridge access to the upstream end of the Appomat- tox River in the Featherfin Wildlife Manage- ment Area. This site is not suitable for motorboats and would require further review to be considered for paddle craft. Appomattox Chesterfield Route 602 VA42 Unknown Yes Yes No No Public This site would not be suitable for motor- 2 No No No River Bridge boats and would need to be reviewed to determine if it is suitable for paddle craft. Appomattox Colonial Appomattox VA91 Local Yes No No Yes Public The Appomattox River Trail currently offers 2 No No No River Heights River Trail Govt. beautiful water views and would benefit from boating access and additional viewing areas. Appomattox Colonial Roslyn Landing VA92 Local Yes No No No Public This appears to be in a good location, but 2 No No No River Heights Colonial Heights Govt. might require a companion site. Appomattox Powhatan Route 604 VA41 Unknown Yes Yes No No Public This site would provide access to the up- 3 No No No River Bridge stream end of the river in the Ameilia Wildlife Management Area. This site is not suitable for motorboats and needs more review to be considered for paddle craft. Appomattox Powhatan Route 609 VA40 Unknown Yes Yes No No Public This site would not be suitable for motor- 2 No No No River Bridge boats and needs more review to be considered for paddle craft. Aquia Creek Stafford Wide Water VA115 State Yes Yes No No Govt. This undeveloped state park is located on 2 Yes Yes Yes State Park Govt. Agency the Potomac River and Aquia Creek. The park’s master plan includes boating, beach, fishing, and viewing access. There are currently no development funds.

82 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B

VIRGINIA (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Bailey's Creek Henrico Fussell Mill VA93 State Yes Yes Yes Yes Public This site is located near an historic 1864 2 Yes No No Pond Govt. battlefield. Belmont Bay Fairfax Mason Neck VA98 State Yes No No No Govt. 3 Yes Yes No State Park Govt. Agency Bennett's Poquoson Rens Rd VA18 Unknown Yes Yes No No Public Discussions about funding improvements at 3 Yes No No Creek/ this site are currently underway between the York River city and the VA Department of Game and In- land Fisheries. Big Run Rockingham Big Run VA7 Private No No No Yes Public 3 No No No

Cat Point Richmond Cat Point Creek VA110 Private Yes No No No Govt. A 2011 application to the Chesapeake Bay 2 No No No Creek Agency Gateways Network financial assistance program suggests a canoe launch and floating dock at the north end of the Menokin shoreline. Cat Point Richmond Cat Point Creek VA111 Private No No No Yes Govt. A 2011 application to the Chesapeake Bay 2 No No No Creek Agency Gateways Network financial assistance program suggests a covered shelter for viewing flora and fauna at the southern end of the Menokin shoreline. Cedar Creek City of Lone Star VA105 Local Yes No No No Govt. A paddle craft landing is suggested for this 3 Yes No No Suffolk Lakes Lodge Govt. Agency site to provide access to the Nansemond Area River. Chesapeake Accomack Broadway VA33 Local Yes Yes No Yes Public A small area of land at this site is owned by 3 Yes No No Bay Landing Govt. Accomack County and could be enlarged to provide a better kayak launch and parking. Five public suggestions were received in favor of adding access at this site. Chesapeake Accomack Mason's Beach VA32 Private Yes Yes Yes Yes Public 3 Yes No No Bay Chesapeake Mathews Doctors Creek VA16 Unknown Yes No No No Public Boating access at this site would provide 3 Yes No No Bay additional access to the Mathews Blueways Water Trail.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B 83

VIRGINIA (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Chesapeake Mathews Sand Bank VA24 Unknown Yes Yes No No Public 3 Yes No No Bay Road Chesapeake Mathews Davis Creek VA66 Private Yes No No No Public 3 Yes No No Bay/ Mobjack Bay Chickahominy Charles Wild Life Pre- VA26 Federal Yes Yes No Yes Public Paddle-boat access is currently provided at 3 Yes No No River City servation Govt. Eagles Rest. Chickahominy New Kent Chickahominy VA10 Private Yes Yes No Yes Public 2 Yes No No River Lake Chickahominy New Kent New Kent VA5 State Govt. Yes No No No Public There once was an access point here that 2 Yes No No River Forestry Center has fallen into disrepair and is now closed to the public. This site would be suitable for a paddle craft launch and could be developed as a companion site for site VA4. However, downstream travel from this point would have to be discouraged as there are no additional take-out points. Chickahominy New Kent Providence VA4 Unknown Yes No No No Public An existing bridge crossing may provide an 2 Yes No No River Forge Access opportunity to expand the VA Department of Transportation Right-of Way to improve the roadside pull off. A companion site (possibly suggested site VA5) would be needed to complement this site for paddle craft. Chickahominy New Kent Game Farm VA83 Unknown Yes Yes No Yes Govt. This site is recommended for public access 2 Yes No No River Marsh Agency in the 2007 Virginia Outdoors Plan. Chuckatuck Suffolk Eclipse VA56 Private No No No Yes Public Chuckatuck Creek has no public access 3 Yes No No Creek except near its headwaters. A public comment suggests that the state acquire property in this area and develop it for public viewing access. Chuckatuck Suffolk Lone Star Lakes VA89 Local Yes No No No Public A paddle craft launch is suggested for this 2 Yes No No Creek Lodge Park Govt. site.

84 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B

VIRGINIA (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE College Creek Town of College Creek VA103 Local Yes No No No Public This site currently has parking, picnicking 2 Yes No No Williamsburg Park Govt. tables, and boardwalk/ viewing platform. An informal paddle craft site is in use and caus- ing significant bank erosion. The access area needs to be hardened and formalized as a launch site. Diascund Creek James Route 60 VA44 Private Yes Yes No Yes Public The church that owns this private property 3 No No No City Bridge over currently allows small boat access from their Diascund Ck. property (except on Sundays). This site provides excellent fishing and wildlife viewing downstream on the tidal creek. Public comments suggest exploring the possibility for developing a formal easement leading to the water’s edge. Dragon Run/ Middlesex Route 17 VA84 Unknown Yes No No No Govt. 3 Yes No No Piankatank Bridge Agency River East River Mathews East River VA63 Local Govt. Yes Yes No No Public This site is close to the VA Department of 2 Yes No No Boat Ramp Game and Inland Fisheries’ Town Point landing and is owned by Mathews County. East River Mathews East River VA17 Local Yes Yes No No Public This is a former landing site for the seafood 3 Yes No No Boat Yard Govt. industry. There would be a significant cost associated with clean-up and development. East River Mathews Put-in-Creek VA70 Local Yes No No No Public Boating access is suggested near Mathews 3 Yes No No Govt. County Courthouse, but would require more examination for feasibility. East River/ Mathews Williams Wharf VA25 Unknown Yes No No No Public This site is close to downtown Mathews. 3 Yes No No Mobjack Bay Elizabeth River Chesapeake Great Bridge VA85 Local Yes No No Yes Govt. This site is included in a Chesapeake Bay 2 No No No Lock Park Govt. Agency Gateways Network application.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B 85

VIRGINIA (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Elizabeth River Norfolk Fort Norfolk VA94 Federal Yes Yes No Yes Public This site is the location of an intact War of 3 Yes No No Govt. 1812 fort. This federal property may have restrictions related to the development of public access. Farnham Creek Richmond Rappahannock VA6 Federal Yes No No Yes Public A small paddle craft launch at this site would 2 Yes No No River Valley Govt. greatly enhance educational opportunities NWR for short paddle trips by school groups from Laurel Grove the VA Department of Transportation site Tract upriver, while also enhancing access to the Rappahannock River. A wildlife observation trail is also proposed. Greys Creek Surry Greys Creek VA36 Private Yes No No Yes Public 3 Yes No No Halfway Creek James Halfway Creek VA3 Federal Yes No No No Public A public comment recommended developing 3 Yes No No City Govt. paddle craft access to this site, which would provide additional access to College Creek amd the Colonial National Historic Park. However, federal regulations currently prohibit public boating access to or from Co- lonial National Historic Park. Hampton Hampton Fort Monroe VA8 Federal Yes Yes Yes Yes Public Fort Monroe is currently transitioning from a 2 Yes No No Roads/ Govt. military base to public ownership. Multiple Chesapeake suggestions for public access were received Bay for this site. Sufficient water depth along the beach would need to be identified to support the development of boating structures. Hazel and Culpeper Hazel and VA96 Unknown Yes No No No Public Boating access is needed at this site near 3 No No No Thornton Rivers Thornton Rixeyville. Rivers Holden's Creek Accomack McKemie Park VA97 Unknown Yes No No No Public Currently, no boat ramp exists at this site, 2 Yes No No though paddle craft can be launched from the creek bank. Formal boating access is suggested at this location.

86 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B

VIRGINIA (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE James R. or James College Creek VA2 Federal Yes No No No Public Paddle-craft access is recommended at this 3 Yes No No College Creek City Access Govt. site. However, federal regulations currently prohibit public boating access to or from Co- lonial National Historic Park. James River Botetourt Alpine VA108 Private Yes No No No Govt. Paddle craft access was suggested for this 2 No No No Agency site on the upper James River, approximately 10 miles downstream from Buchanan. James River Buckingham Hatton Ferry VA50 State Govt. Yes Yes No No Public Boating and fishing public access are 3 No No No needed in this location to break up the long float between Howardsville and Scottsville. The VA Department of Transportation currently owns this property and allows informal paddle-sport access. Formal access should be developed at this site. James River Charles Lawrence VA11 Local Yes Yes No Yes Public This site has already been permitted for a 1 Yes No No City Lewis, Jr. Park Govt. boat launch. However, the locality currently lacks the funds to construct it. James River Isle of James River VA35 Local Govt. Yes Yes No Yes Public This site is the gateway to the south side of 3 Yes No No Wight the James River. The county currently does not have any funds available, but would like to see public access developed here in the future. A potential need for frequent dredging may limit opportunities at this site.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B 87

VIRGINIA (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE James River Nelson Howardsville VA49 Unknown Yes Yes No No Public The existing public access at Howardsville 3 No No No will be closed due to inadequate parking and many complaints. It needs to be replaced to provide a good takeout from the existing landing at Midway. A boat ramp is greatly needed at this location to support the water trail. The north shore provides the deeper water to handle motorboats. The south shore would handle paddle craft only. Two public comments were received in favor of developing public access at this site, and state agencies support the need for public access in this location. James River Powhatan Powhatan VA118 State Yes Yes No No Govt. This site was acquired for development of a 1 Yes No No County State Park Govt. Agency state park. Plans for phase one have been completed and include a paddle craft launch as well as boat-in campsites. This site should open to the public in 2013. James River Prince James River VA9 Federal Yes No No Yes Public 3 Yes No No George National Govt. Wildlife Refuge James River Surry Claremont VA28 Local Yes Yes No Yes Public 3 Yes No No Govt. James River Surry James River VA37 Local Yes No No No Public 3 Yes No No Govt. James River Chesterfield Bermuda VA27 Private Yes Yes No Yes Public Public comments suggest that this property is 3 Yes No No Hundred owned by Park 500 (Phillip Morris). It provides good access to Presquile Isle (Turkey Island). In the past, small groups of kayakers could get permission to launch there, but not any- more. Additional review of the feasibility of access at this site is required.

88 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B

VIRGINIA (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE James River, James Jamestown VA1 Federal Yes No No No Public This site received numerous suggestions for 3 Yes No No Back River or City Island Govt. paddle craft access, but federal regulations creek that protect the historic context of the site currently prohibit public boating access to or from Colonial National Historic Park. Johns Creek Craig Sean Comer VA30 Unknown Yes No No Yes Public The water depth at this location is very shal- 3 No No No low and a companion site would be required. Lake Anna Louisa North Anna VA31 Private Yes Yes No Yes Public 3 No No No River Little Carter Wellford Rappahannock VA119 Federal No No No Yes Govt. A wildlife observation trail to Little Carter 2 Yes No No Creek River National Govt. Agency Creek and interpretive signs about Captain Wildlife Refuge John Smith, the Rappahannock Indians, and (Wellford Unit) resource management activities are proposed for this site. Lower Surry Chippokes VA101 State Yes No No No Govt. Paddle craft access is proposed at this site, 2 Yes No No Chippokes Plantation State Govt. Agency which was identified in the Captain John Creek Park Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail - James Segment Plan. Lower Arlington/ Lower VA112 Local Yes No No Yes Public With an EPA grant, the communities of 2 Yes No Yes Four Mile Run Four Mile Run Govt. Alexandria and Arlington, the Northern Vir- ginia Regional Commission and the USACE created a visionary master plan that includes new water access along Four Mile Run to connect to the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail and the Potomac River. It is located in-between Route 1 and the George Washington Memorial Parkway. Boating access would be non-motorized. Mattaponi River Caroline Paige Road VA51 State Yes Yes No No Public This site is located on the Mattaponi Wildlife 3 Yes No No Bridge Govt. Management Area. Fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing are all very good. This site would be the middle of three proposed access sites on this stretch of the river for paddle craft.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B 89

VIRGINIA (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Mattaponi River Caroline Route 207 VA52 Unknown Yes Yes No No Public The bridge contractors have developed a 3 Yes No No Bridge road between the two bridges that leads to the river, but parking is needed. Maury River Rock- Route 622 VA54 Private Yes No No No Public Informal access currently exists at this site 3 No No No bridge Bridge for hand-carried boats. All other uses are prohibited by the landowner. Public comments suggest that boating access at this location should be formalized and made permanent. Maury River Rock- Route 631 VA53 Unknown Yes Yes No No Public Informal access currently exists at this site 2 No No No bridge Bridge on the Maury River. Formal boating and fishing structures are proposed for this site. Messongo Accomack Tims Landing VA62 Unknown Yes No No Yes Public 2 Yes No No Creek Morris Creek Charles Upper Morris VA43 State Yes Yes No Yes Public This site would provide access to the Chick- 3 No No No City Creek Govt. ahominy Wildlife Management Area. It would be suitable for paddle craft only. Mulberry Creek Lancaster Belle Isle VA100 State No Yes No No Govt. The development of a fishing platform is 2 Yes No No State Park Govt. Agency suggested for this site at Belle Isle State Park on Mulberry Creek. Nansemond City of Driver VA106 Local Yes No No Yes Govt. Suffolk City owns a small portion of land with 2 Yes No No River Suffolk Sportsplex Park Govt. Agency access possibilities between two portions of the Nansemond National Wildlife Refuge that could be developed with the National Wildlife Refuge. This site on the Nansemond River has great potential for viewing and at least a launch for paddle craft. Nansemond Suffolk End of VA55 Local No Yes No Yes Public State Route 125 (Kings Highway) bridge 3 Yes No No River Route 125 Govt. was demolished and left a great site for fishing and viewing access on both sides of the river. This site is already graded to the river and is probably owned by the VA De- partment of Transportation.

90 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B

VIRGINIA (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Nansemond Suffolk Land under VA61 Private Yes No No Yes Public This site used to have a private bait shop 2 Yes No No River Route 17 and pier that were washed out after a storm Bridge and were not replaced. Nansemond Suffolk Sleepy Hole VA90 Local Yes No No No Public Boating access, possibly in the form of a 2 Yes No No River Park Govt. boat ramp or a paddle craft launch is suggested for this site. The city, which currently owns this site, has expressed interested in developing one or both of these options. Nansemond Suffolk VA DOT VA58 State Govt. Yes No No Yes Public This site is owned by the Virginia Dept. of 1 Yes No No River Transportation

Nansemond Suffolk Lone Star Park VA60 Local Govt. No No No Yes Public This waterfront property was formerly used 2 Yes No No River at Cedar Creek for shipping commerce down the river. Bulk- heads and road access are already in exis- tence at this site. It is owned by Suffolk County Nansemond Suffolk Brady's Marina VA59 Private Yes Yes No Yes Public The old, private marina that currently exists 2 Yes No No River at this site is in disrepair and may be very West Branch costly to purchase and renovate, but the location is very good. North Fork Albemarle Dickerson VA75 Unknown Yes No No No Govt. This would be a good site for paddle craft if it 2 No No No Rivanna River Road Bridge Agency is developed with a companion site. This site Crossing is recommended for public access in the 2007 Virginia Outdoors Plan. North River Mathews Rt 617 VA13 Unknown Yes Yes No Yes Public Access at this location would connect the 3 Yes No No Mathews Blueways Water Trail to Mobjack Bay. Occoquan River Fairfax Occoquan VA69 Local Govt. Yes Yes No Yes Public This site has an existing, town-managed 2 Yes No Yes Regional Park facility in place. It is owned by the Regional Park Authority

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B 91

VIRGINIA (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Occoquan River Prince Lake Ridge VA109 Local Yes No No No Govt. A 2011 application to the Chesapeake Bay 2 No No No William Park Govt. Agency Gateways financial assistance program suggests the development of ADA- accessible docks for kayaks and canoes at Lake Ridge Park, as part of the Occoquan Water Trail. Onancock Accomack Onancock VA95 Unknown Yes No No No Public Boating access is suggested for this site, 1 Yes No No Creek School Landing which is part of the Onancock Creek Water Trail Project and would be a good companion site for educational programming. Onancock Accomack Poplar Cove VA34 Private Yes Yes No Yes Public This site has an old marine railway and is a 3 Yes No No Creek Wharf scenic destination for bicyclists riding from Onancock. Water depth is insufficient for motorboats, but the old railway could be developed into a good paddle craft launch if parking was provided. Pagan River Isle of Rt 623 Bridge VA102 Local Govt. Yes Yes No No Public The potential exists to develop a paddle craft 2 Yes No No Wight Crossing launch on property adjacent to the Rt. 623 Bridge. The site appears suitable for parking and a paddle craft launch. Pamunkey Hanover Below Route VA82 Unknown Yes No No No Govt. Boating access is suggested at this site, 2 No Yes No River 301 Bridge Agency which is recommended for public access in the 2007 Virginia Outdoors Plan. Pamunkey King Judy Swamp VA47 Unknown Yes Yes No No Public The Pamunkey River currently has very 3 No No No River William limited public access. This site is located in the middle of three proposed light boat access sites and would be a good site for paddle craft.

92 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B

VIRGINIA (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Pamunkey King Route 360 VA46 Unknown Yes Yes No No Public The Pamunkey River currently has very 3 No No No River William Bridge limited public access. This site is located close to major population centers and has good wildlife viewing opportunities. It was previously considered for public access development by the VA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. The site was found to be not suitable for motorboats, but would serve paddle craft if a companion site is identified. Pamunkey King Route 360 VA81 Unknown Yes No No No Govt. Boating access, especially for paddle craft, 2 No No No River William Crossing Agency is suggested at this location on Big Creek off of the Pamunkey River. This site is recommended for public access in the 2007 Virgin- ia Outdoors Plan. Pamunkey King Route 615 VA48 Unknown Yes Yes No No Public The Pamunkey River currently has very 3 No No No River William Bridge limited public access. This is the uppermost site in a series of three proposed light boat access sites and would be a good site for paddle craft. Pamunkey New Kent Route 624 VA45 Unknown Yes Yes No No Public The tidal portion of the Pamunkey River 3 Yes No No River currently has very limited public access. Pamunkey New Kent Big Creek VA80 Unknown Yes No No No Govt. This would be a good location for paddle 2 Yes No No River Agency craft access. Perrin River/ Gloucester Cooks Landing VA23 Unknown Yes No No No Public Historically, this area has been a commercial 3 Yes No No York River seafood landing. However, a transfer of ownership has left watermen in need of a docking site. Boating access is suggested at this site, though commercial and recreational needs would have to be examined to ensure compatible use. Piakatank Middlesex Deltaville VA72 Unknown Yes No No No Public 2 Yes No No River

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B 93

VIRGINIA (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Piankatank Mathews Chapel Lane VA15 Unknown Yes Yes Yes No Public 3 Yes No No River (Rt 631) Piankatank Mathews Route 3 Bridge VA19 Unknown Yes No No No Public There is an existing, unimproved launch site 3 Yes No No River at this location. Potomac Fairfax Riverside Park VA29 Federal No Yes No Yes Public This site is along the GW Parkway. Federal 3 Yes Yes Yes River Govt. restrictions need to be reviewed to assess if public access is feasible at this location. Potomac Stafford Crow’s Nest VA114 State Govt. Yes No No Yes Govt. The large area of protected open-space, 2 Yes Yes Yes River Natural Agency plus its location near a major population Preserve center represent great potential for passive recreation and outdoor education opportunities. The preserve is open to a limited de- gree, but significant staff and operations resources are needed before public access can be effectively implemented. The Brooke Road access point offers a short bird- ing/nature trail to a viewpoint of Accokeek Creek. Plans are in the works to add a paddle craft launch onto Accokeek Creek by 2013. Hiking trails are also under construction that will feature interpretive information about the natural and cultural history of Crow's Nest. Stafford County shares ownership of this site. Potomac Westmo- George VA116 Federal Yes No No No Govt. This site has frontage on both the Potomac 3 Yes Yes Yes River reland Washington Govt. Agency River and Popes Creek. There is the poten- Birthplace tial for a suitable paddle craft launch. Nat’l Monument Rapidan Madison Liberty Mills VA87 Unknown Yes No No No Govt. A paddle craft launch is suggested at this 3 No No No River (Rt.231) Agency site. Rapidan Orange Madison Mills VA88 Unknown Yes No No No Govt. 1 No No No River (Rt. 15) Agency Rappa- Essex Bowlers Wharf VA20 Unknown Yes Yes Yes Yes Public 3 Yes No No hannock River

94 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B

VIRGINIA (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Rappa- Essex Prince Street VA12 Private No No No Yes Public The Tappahannock Main Street Program 2 Yes No No hannock River Public Pier hopes to provide viewing access to the river via the construction of a public pier at the site of a previous historic pier. The town is purchasing land for a public park and may be able to help fund the pier. This site has previously been identified for potential public access in association with the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. Rappa- Fauquier Rappahannock VA74 Local Yes Yes No Yes Govt. 3 No No No hannock River Station Park Govt. Agency Rappa- Lancaster Belle Isle State VA99 State Govt. Yes No No No Govt. This site is currently owned by the Virginia 2 Yes No No hannock River Park Agency Department of Conservation and Recreation

Rappa- Middlesex Lagrange VA22 Unknown Yes No No No Public 3 Yes No No hannock River Creek Rappa- Middlesex Route 3 Bridge VA71 Unknown Yes No No No Public 2 Yes No No hannock River Rappa- Orange Raccoon Ford VA67 State Yes Yes No Yes Public This site is too steep for motorboat access, 2 No No No hannock River Govt. but could also be used for paddle craft. Rappa- Port Royal Rappahannock VA113 Federal Yes No No Yes Govt. A wildlife observation trail, photography 3 Yes No No hannock River River National Govt. Agency blind, and paddle trail with access and inter- Wildlife Refuge pretation are proposed for this site. (Port Royal Unit) Rappa- Spotsylvania Hunting Run VA68 Local Yes No No No Public 2 No No No hannock River Govt. Rappa- Stafford Washington's VA86 Federal Yes No No Yes Govt. 3 Yes No Yes hannock River Ferry Farm Govt. Agency Rappa- Middlesex Stingray Point VA14 Unknown Yes No No No Public This site is located at the mouth of the Rap- 1 Yes No No hannock River pahannock River near the Chesapeake Bay.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B 95

VIRGINIA (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE Rappa- Essex Mouth of Pisca- VA73 State Yes No No No Public Formal boating access is suggested at this 2 Yes No No hannock River/ taway Creek Govt. site. The site currently features an informal, Piscataway gravel access point just near the Route 17 Creek bridge over the creek. Rivanna River Charlottes- Pen Park VA77 Local Yes Yes No Yes Govt. This site has been reviewed by the VA De- 2 No No No ville Govt. Agency partment of Game and Inland Fisheries and would be suitable for paddle craft if a companion site is developed with it. This site is recommended for public access in the 2007 Virginia Outdoors Plan and in the City of Charlottesville Parks and Recreation Plan. Severn River/ Gloucester Severn Wharf VA65 Unknown Yes No No No Public 2 Yes No No Mobjack Bay Road South Fork Albemarle Route 29 VA76 Unknown Yes No No No Govt. This site, a good location for paddle craft, 2 No No No Rivanna River Crossing below Agency has been reviewed by the VA Department of South Fork Game and Inland Fisheries. There are plans Reservoir Dam for Albemarle County to develop this site in partnership with the VA Department of Transportation. This site is recommended for public access in the 2007 Virginia Outdoors Plan. Turkey Neck Charles Turkey Neck VA104 State Govt. Yes No No No Public This site would provide access to Presquile 3 Yes No No Creek City Creek at Rt. 5 and Private NWR. It could be developed as a paddle crossing craft launch launch site in conjunction with the development of the Capital Bike Trail. Ware River Mathews Mobjack VA64 Unknown Yes No No No Public This site is at the end of Warehouse Road. 2 Yes No No Western Branch City of Brady's Marina VA107 Local Yes No No Yes Govt. This is an existing marina in need of major 3 Yes No No Nansemond Suffolk Govt. Agency renovation; may become available for public River acquisition. York River Gloucester Middle VA117 State Yes Yes Yes No Govt. This site, owned by the Virginia Department 2 Yes No No Peninsula Govt. Agency of Conservation and Recreation, was ac- State Park quired for a state park on the lower York River. It has the potential to provide boating, fishing, and swimming access.

96 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B

VIRGINIA (continued)

Relationship to Potential Activities Existing Trails Current Plan Water Body County Site Name Site ID Source Special Notes Ownership Category Boat Fish Swim View CAJO STSP POHE York River Gloucester Timberneck Rd. VA21 Unknown Yes Yes No Yes Public 3 Yes No No York River York Werner Novak VA38 Federal Yes Yes No Yes Public Paddle craft access is suggested for this 3 Yes No No Govt. site, but federal regulations currently prohibit public boating access to or from Colonial National Historic Park.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B 97

(Intentionally blank for two-sided printing.)

98 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B

Appendix C Potential Funding Sources

Listed below are a series of federal and state funding sources that can be used to support public access development. This is only a partial list of potential funders for access sites. Local governments have direct funding capabilities not shown here; various corporations and foundations support access site expansion as well.

Federally Funded Programs

• Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network: This National Park Service program provides financial and technical assistance for public access site development in association with some 170 sites or trails in the Gateways and Watertrails Network and along the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail and Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail. Financial assistance requires a 1:1 match. • Boating Infrastructure Grant Program (BIG): Administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, this program provides grants for transient moorage (tie-ups) serving recreational motorboats 26 feet and longer. Could help with water to land access. Financial assistance requires a 25 percent match. • Transportation Enhancement Program: Administered by the Federal Highway Administration and state departments of transportation, this program may fund access projects if directly tied to history of water based transportation. Financial assistance requires a 20 percent match. • Recreational Trails Program (RTP): This program provides funds to states to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both non-motorized and motorized recreational trail uses. The RTP is an assistance program of the U.S. Department of Transporta- tion’s Federal Highway Administration. This program may fund access projects if it can be shown that the site is a part of a designated water trail. Financial assistance requires a 20 percent match. • Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF): Through the “state-side” of the LWCF, the Na- tional Park Service provides matching grants to states and local governments for the acquisition and development of public outdoor recreation areas and facilities. Funding can include both acquisition and development and requires a 50 percent match. • Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Safety Trust Fund (Dingle-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux): This program, administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, may fund land acquisition and the development, operation, and maintenance of boating access facilities. Financial assistance requires a 25 percent match.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix C 99

State‐Funded Programs

• Maryland’s Program Open Space (POS): This is a nationally recognized program that funds acquisition and recreation facility development. The local grant component (local-side POS) provides financial and technical assistance to local subdivisions for the planning, acquisition, and/or development of recreation land or open space areas. The state component (state-side POS) involves analysis, rankings, and on-site inspections to verify ecological benefits and cost factors. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will consider purchase of lands outside of the updated Green Infrastructure for exceptional recreational, cultural, historical, educational, water access, resource-based economic, and in-holding/management purposes in existing DNR-managed land and parks. • Maryland Waterway Improvement Fund: This program, administered by the Maryland Depart- ment of Natural Resources, provides funding to local, state, and federal agencies in the form of matching grants for a variety of capital projects, services, and safety initiatives for the boating public. • Virginia Land Conservation Fund: This fund, administered by the Virginia Department of Con- servation and Recreation under the Parks and Open Space category, can fund the acquisition of land for public access. Projects require a 1:1 match. Applications are accepted from both government entities and nonprofit organizations. • Virginia Saltwater Fishing Recreational Development Fund: This program, administered by the Vir- ginia Marine Resources Commission, may fund the development of public access projects in the areas of the state requiring a saltwater fishing license and would enhance fishing opportunity. Projects require a 25 percent match. • Virginia Motor Boat and Water Safety Fund: This fund can be used for the administration, law enforcement, boating education and safety, and purposes of direct benefit to the boating public. The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries is considering the development of a local grant program for public access using this fund. If this program is approved, it would require a 25 percent local match. • Pennsylvania Access Improvement Program: This program provides compensation to landowners who grant a public fishing access and conservation easement to the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission. • Pennsylvania Community Conservation Partnership Grant Program (C2P2): This program, administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, offers a wide range of grant and technical assistance programs to help communities, land conservancies, and non-profit organizations plan, acquire, and develop parks, recreation facilities, and river resources. Grants require a 1:1 match. • Delaware Land & Water Conservation Trust Fund (DTF): This program funds active and passive outdoor recreation facilities and land acquisition. Car-top launch sites are eligible for funding assistance. Larger water access sites are encouraged to seek Sport Fish Restoration and Boat- ing Safety Trust Fund (Dingle-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux) funds. Grants require a 1:1 match.

100 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Public Access Plan • Appendix B